# Wings or No?



## Beorn

Did Balrogs have Wings? What do you think, rather than what you evidence thinks....I don't want people to argue, just whether they have wings...


----------



## Uminya

Of course! The book even says so.


----------



## Thorondor

I don't think that they did. I know it describes them somewhere, I guess I better look it up.

Don't worry, I don't plan on starting an arguement.


----------



## ReadWryt

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



I don't need to say anything else.


----------



## Iluvatar

I had been swayed by a previous paragraph that described the shadow behind him as being "like two vast wings," but this passage by ReadWyrt has convinced me that Balrogs did in fact have wings.


----------



## Lantarion

In one of Howe's paintings, or some other artist's, the Lord of Balrogs doesn't have wings. I think he looks like an exceptionally large and ugly troll, and the wings add a much-needed touch to his mien.
No intended argument-starting content.


----------



## Rosie Cotton

I'm pretty sure that the balrog _did_ have wings. I used to think that he didn't, that they only had "shadowy" wings that weren't there in the physical sense, but the quote from the book is



> and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings



so it was the shadow surrounding the balrog that was being described in this part, and later when the balrog is being described as spreading his wings from wall to wall it probably meant real physical wings.

How do you picture the balrog, aside from the wings? I've always imagined him as a giant monster, by monster meaning a type of devil/beasty creature all red and horned. When reading this part of the book just now to find the quote, I just reformed how I've always pictured him. The book describes him as "a great shadow in the midst of which was a great being, possibly of man shape, yet greater". I now have a much more terrifying image then my devil creature. I now picture a giant man, engulfed in flame and shadow, but scarily human, wielding a whip, you can barely see the man in the midst of the shadow, but his outline is there and you can almost see the look of hatred upon his face.

 Of course it's really hard to picture him like this and still see him as having wings. So I think that Tolkien intended for him to have wings, I just don't picture them when I picture the balrog.


----------



## Gothmog

I do not and never have believed that Balrogs had wings. The quote that ReadWryt posted could just as easily mean the shadow of the Balrog as this had already been discribed as reaching out "like two vast wings". Therefore the 'wings' mentioned later were probably the Shadow of the Balrog reaching the walls. I don't think that Tolkin thought of the Balrogs as having wings as there is no mention of such things anywhere else.


----------



## Dengen-Goroth

I agree with you Gothmog. I can never imagine, and haven't, Balrogs with wings.


----------



## Iluvatar

I have always pictured Balrogs as having wings, and ReadWyrt's quotation confirms it in my mind. Nevertheless, I do concede the validity of Gothmog's posting; I just don't agree with it. My first view of Balrogs came from the 1979 Tolkien calendar. That year was devoted to scenes from Bakshi's film. As terrible as that movie was it did contain some sensational artwork. The portrayal of the Balrog will forever be the one that I think of.


----------



## ReadWryt

To presume that when Tolkien said that the Balrog's wings spread from wall to wall meant that he REALLY meant the Shadows is to impune his ability to susinctly describe events and scenes. I think that if you read his works you will find that he had a firm grasp on describing PRECISELY what he meant, and with tremendous detail and accuracy.


----------



## Gothmog

I impugn NOTHING!!! I interpret that which I read, as do you!!! I think that if you Read his Works you will find that he allows each to interpret acording to his abilities. That is why so many people enjoy his works so much!! Also why there are so many discusions about the finer points of his works.


----------



## Iluvatar

I agree with Gothmog about the importance of our interpreting the works of Tolkien ourselves, even if the old fart is wrong about Balrogs and their wings. Tolkien implied on several occasions that he was just a translator of the Red Book of Westmarch (note that the Redbook's version of Gamgee is actually Galbasi (or Galpsi). This creates the possibility of the fallible author and the fallible narration. We have two conflicting paragraphs, found on the same page. One said "like wings" and the other very definitely said "wings." What did Tolkien mean? What did Frodo (Tolkien's author) mean? I prefer to believe that they meant that Balrogs had wings, but the old fart believes that they meant that Balrogs did not have wings. Who's right? Well, obviously I am, since the old fart's brain cells have obviously deteriorated after a life of profligate living, but it doesn't mean that he's impugning Tolkien, or Frodo.


----------



## Gothmog

Well said Iluvatar. My view of the Balrog was formed before I saw the film or any artwork of Balrogs, Therefore, to me the images by others look wrong. Just my view.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with my brain cells. Both of them are working fine. It is just that sometimes they do not speak to each other!!!


----------



## Thorondor

Like I said before, I don't think they had wings, but extended their power in a consuming darkness(shadowy wings). 

I am also suprised that no one has brought up the point Why didn't the Balrog fly out of the Abyss with its wings? Shadows can't fly, and wings can.

Rosie- Doesn't it also say there, or somewhere, that it had a flaming whip, and a flaming sword/or mace?


----------



## Rosie Cotton

Yes, it does says he had a flaming whip and a sword. I don't remember anything about a mace though.


----------



## Thorondor

Oh, I think it said that in the Sil.


----------



## Kementari

'Why did the Balrog cross the road??? 

Well, no ones knows if the Balrog acually crossed the road or not - the "road" may have been metaphorical, Tolkien was very unclear'  

Everybodie has their own visions, it is not use argueing! But it does say WINGS in the text, so I believe that the Balrog may have had them... 

Maybe there was not enough room for the Balrog to spread his wings and fly off!!


----------



## ReadWryt

You mean I'm not the ONLY "old fart" around here?

I'm just saying that the same man who could take up nearly a page and a half describing Minas Tirith, or as the party approached Rivendell, when he says "Echoes ran along as they hurried forward; and there seemed to be a sound of many footfalls following their own.", then later says, "He did not obey at once, for a strange reluctance seized him. Checking the horse to a walk, he turned and looked back. The Riders seemed to sit upon their great steeds like threatening statues upon a hill, dark and solid, while all the woods and land about them receded as if into a mist.", are we to assume that the Black Riders horses had no feet because the former statement said there only Seemed to be footfalls following?

I tend to think that the author had the marvelous habbit of saying what he meant, and quite eloquently described what he meant us to see, hear and feel. Frodo is quite obviously being dragged down by what previously had been described as something "like a great weight upon him", and in the end it indeed manifested as a great weight, literally and figuratively.

I meant no insult in saying that to not take literally Tolkien's assertion that Wings spread from wall to wall was to impune his skills, but as a sound can be LIKE footfalls when in actuallity they are, could not the Shadows of Wings turn out to reveal themselves as actual wings?

As for why Balrogs don't fly, ask an ostrach or penguin..*Shrug*


----------



## Gothmog

It would seem that you are not.

Why do you want everything to be of one view? Only one way to interpret the whole of the writings of Tolkin?

I agree! He was marvelous at making sure that we would have his view of things he ment us to see, feel or hear. Does that prove that he did mean us to see the Balrog in a particular way? No, it means that when he wanted us to see, feel or hear something in a certain way he would do so. Otherwise he would leave some ambiguity so that we could use our own imagination and thereby be part of the story!

Yes, The shadows of wings could have turned out to be actual wings, but they could also have turned out to be shadows so dark as to seem solid. As I said it is a matter of interpretation.

As for the Ostrich, it's wings are to small to bear the weight of it's body in flight.

The penguin uses it's wings to "fly" under the water. The movements of it's wings to travel under water are the same that other birds use to move through the air.


----------



## ReadWryt

You all may b missunderstanding me, I don't know. It just seems to be that the last thing an author would want to do is cause confusion. *Shrug* N`ere mind...I'll leave this one to the Lord of Balrogs and High Captain of Angband.


----------



## Lantarion

I always picture the Balrog w/ wings. Why couldn't he both have wings AND strech out a shadowy muck? And the reason why he didn't fly out of the abyss in Moria is (_in my opinion_) because Gandalf, a very powerful Maia and wizard, was kicking his ass (pardon my French), and the poor, ickle Balroggy-woggy was probably in the throws of fairly sizeable clutches of pain, and couldn't function properly. When he cooled off (ie, almost drowned in the freezing water under the Bridge), he most likely ran off into the fabled tunnels under Khazad-Dum, and eventually scampered into the Tower, where he fell.


----------



## Thorondor

Pontifex-

Now that is a reason that actually seems to make sense to me, and I could actually believe that more than others saying, the book said the word wings, so they had to be wings. I don't think that the balrog was that terribly destroyed though, until reaching the water.
JMO


----------



## Gothmog

Thorondor, The reasons, physical wings, wings of shadow or both, All make sense. Any of them could be true, it is just a matter of how each person pictures the Balrog. I was not arguing that my view has to be the one that every body accepts, only that I picture the Balrog without wings and my defence of that picture. Others will have a different picture.

ReadWryt, the confusion does not come from the author. We are the ones disusing the finer points of a book writen by some one that we have not talked to. I accept your view of the Balrog's wings and the writings of Tolkin. But I will still defend My views on them.


----------



## Uminya

Whether they were made of fire, flesh, or shadow...wings are wings.


----------



## Thorondor

ciryaher, yes on that point I do agree then they did have wings, but obviously everyone here is discussing whether they are liturally wings or not


----------



## Dagorlad

I too have wondered if real wings were meant, or if the Balrog used his own power over fear, fire, and darkness to create them. I see no significant difference, like Ciryahir said, and I don't believe Tolkien intended us to believe the creature could fly anyway. Real or percieved wings, I have no real opinion. There are a number of very obvious reasons why it may not have been able to fly out of the chasm(assuming it had actual capacity for flight), not the least of which is that it had Gandalf heading down as well, and Gandalf would have been clinging (especially if the Balrog might fly)and perhaps hewing with his sword as well. Flying up would have brought Gandalf up. But I don't believe we are intended to think there was a chance of that happening anyway.
I have seen a thread for discussion of the paths of the dead in some forum here. An arguement in there was quite the same. Tolkien said exactly what he meant, and was very good at doing it with few words. 
Also, Gothmog you told ReadWryt in your last post that the confusion doesn't come from the author. I think that's exactly what ReadWryt was trying to say in his previous posts.

Picture the demon from the movie "Legend", with a slightly less human face simply because it looks more evil, add glowing white or red eyes, make it black as charcoal, bigger, with some long, straight unkempt looking black hair, black wings like a bat, and rippled with muscle. My Balrog.


----------



## Gothmog

Dagorlad, ReadWryt was answering a point that I made that Tolkien could describe exactly what he wished us to see when he wanted, but that did not mean that every thing he described had to be done with the same attention to detail. Some things he could have left to the readers interpretation. ReadWryt disagreed me.

Very nice picture of your Balrog. Amputate the wings and you have pretty much a picture of my Balrog. 

Cian, thank you for the quotes, Shows that any interpretation could be the right one.


----------



## Lantarion

Now that you mention it, I can't really picture a Balrog flying, without him looking pretty silly.

WARNING: side-tracking content approaching! 

as a side note: The first time I read the Bridge of Khazad-Dum, I thought Legolas was speaking in his own language when he cried,
"A Balrog!". It may have been, since the word 'Balrog' is Sindarin, as is the exclamation 'A' (or is that 'ai'?). It's kind of strange...


----------



## Talierin

I think they had wings, but they were about as useful as an ostrich's......
A big, flame-demon flying.... nope, can't see it......


----------



## Telchar

I lean towards the idea that they had something that looked like wings but were not wings in the sense that birds have wings. They could envelop themselves in shadow, similar to Ungoliant, and this shadow could look like wings. I do think they could fly but they had enough power to do so without needing wings.

Balrogs were Maiar. I think that they may have been able to change their appearance in the beginning, but as they expended their power they lost this ability. So if one had wings, others may not.


----------



## Thorin

Sil mentions the episodes in one of the battles against Morgoth that he released the powers of Angband and there were many Balrogs let loose? And also when Ungoliante snared Morgoth, he cried out and a bunch of Balrogs came to his aid? 

To me, these episodes imply swiftness and efficiency. How would it look if Morgoth yells, "Help!!!" And here comes a few Balrogs huffing and puffing it on foot a few miles away from over the mountains, "Yes, master..(pant,pant)..we're coming! Just hold on for a bit (huff, puff) and we'll save you from the vicious arachnid!"

I think to have come so swiftly at Morgoth's cry s well to have been released on the elves with the force and fear they had means that they probably would have had to have wings.

Ya think?...


----------



## Gothmog

Telchar, Very good points.

Thorin, The argument about wings aside, there is no evidence to show that Balrogs flew In the Dagor Bragollach, Tolkien wrote that rivers of flame ran down swifter than balrogs. Which to me gives the idea that Balrogs moved on the ground rather than in the air.
Balrogs are Maiar and could probably move with great speed on land. One other point, if Balrogs could fly why did Earendil and all the great birds not become involved in the war of wrath until the attack of Ancalagon and the winged dragons?


----------



## El-ahrairah

*Can anyone handle a thread on Balrogs + Wings?*

Ok, I don't want to stir up any emotions here; however, in my searching for more info on the upcoming (hopefully great) trilogy of movies, I have run into an enormous amount of discussion on Balrogs and if they have wings or no. Let me set the record straight.

Now, I don't claim to be an expert on LotR, but let me quote this:

From FotR The Bridge of Khazad-Dum:

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

How can anyone think Balrogs DON'T have wings? At least this one. And if even ONE has wings, you cannot claim "Balrogs don't have wings".

Can they fly? That is another question altogether.


----------



## Beorn

How can someone say that? Easily. Read Two paragraphs before that...


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



It says like. Tolkien was very precise with his words...
Source:http://www.tolkien.cro.net/balrogs/fly.html


----------



## El-ahrairah

Ok, perhaps I read it wrong. I saw the earlier paragraph I also perhaps gave Tolken too much credit with his precision.

I simply read it as "its shadow spread like wings" but later saying "its wings spread from wall to wall" not "it's shadow like wings spread from wall to wall"

A matter of interpretation, like I said I'm not trying to cause heartache to those who believe; however, I find it hard to believe he would be specific in one paragraph then not in another. If it were a shadow, he wouldn't have said "it's wings spread from wall to wall"

Hehe, I wonder which path the movie will take. Question: will anyone give the movie a bad rating just because this scene isn't as one hopes?


----------



## Telchar

I know that there is another thread like this somewhere on the board.. But I can't find it.. 

Balrogs where maiar, and maiar could take the shape they wanted, so wouldn't you think that the balrogs looked differently? Or do you belive that all the maiar who followed Melcor took the exact same shape? Since they had the will to decide their shape in the beginning some, probably, chose wings, others may not. So if one have wings, it dosn't mean that al had wings..


----------



## Iluvatar

Since it seems to be a given that Tokien was so very precise with his words, then it should also be a given that balrogs (at least this one - very good point by Telchar) *do* have wings. In one paragraph its shadow spread like wings, and in an ensuing paragraph it explicitly states that 'its wings were sread from wall to wall.' Given Tolkien's accepted precision with his words, this obviously indicates that the balrog had wings, *and* that the balrog's shadow spread out like wings. And, of course, a shadow appearing to spread like wings becomes less surprising once you realise that the item casting the shadow *has* wings.

Also, why can't balrogs fly? I've always envisioned them as doing so, and even once wrote an aborted short story along those lines. I don't understand the emotional abhorrence of the idea of balrogs flying.


----------



## Lantarion

I think that, as a Maia, a Balrog can take perhaps not any shape, but shapes like fire, shadow and the like are obvious possibilities.
I think that Balrogs perhaps _use_ wings to frighten their opponent, like a peacock. I think that they can fly, but they don't need wings, being demi-gods and all (but it's cool to think of them flying w/ wings), and they possibly don't need to fly at all, because the foolish carrot who stands up to a Balrog (no offence, Gandalf  ) is dead before you can say 'Balrogs don't have wings'.
Oh, and welcome El-ahrairah, have a great time at this insane place.


----------



## Beorn

Yeah, welcome. The book says "shadow about it reached out like two vast wings," so if it later says wings, the wings would be referred to as shadows...


----------



## Thorin

> _Originally posted by Telchar _
> *
> 
> Balrogs where maiar, and maiar could take the shape they wanted, so wouldn't you think that the balrogs looked differently? Or do you belive that all the maiar who followed Melcor took the exact same shape? Since they had the will to decide their shape in the beginning some, probably, chose wings, others may not. So if one have wings, it dosn't mean that al had wings.. *



That is not necessarily true, Telchar. Considering Tolkien said that there were probably only 7 Balrogs, they were probably all the same...that's why they were all called Balrogs. Taking the shape of a specific "race" would imply the same parameters of those who take it. Look at the Istari, they all had staffs and the same powers, they probably looked quite the same as well. I can't see some of the Maia at the beginning saying, "Hmm, I don't think that I really want to carry around a staff all day. You guys can have one, I want something smaller, like a flute!" Having something like wings seems to me to be an important part of being a Balrog. Now maybe some of them might have had a big ring through their nose and others may not have...


----------



## Iluvatar

Mike:

It says 'like vast wings,' and then alter it says 'its wings.' To me wings are not things that are like wings; they are wings. Given the assumption of Tolkien's precison with words, if balrogs did not have wings then the sentence would read "and its shadows spread from wall to wall." Anyway, that's my thinking.

Thorie:

As I understand it, the Istari were under a constraint to limit the form of their appearance; they were not permitted to overawe the inhabitants of Middle-earth. Saruman does mention the 'staffs of the five wizards,' and we can: a) assume that he knew what he was talking about, and b) presume that he was speaking literally and not figuratively. Perhaps the Istari decided upon staffs as a unifying symbol of their purpose, but if it were discovered that the two Blue Istari had wands and not staffs, that would be cool with me. As for balrogs, my supposition is that when they subjoined their beings to Morgoth to become the Valaraukar they also lost some of their powers of incarnation (similar to Sauron after the fall of Numenor). As such, they would be constrained to the typical form of balrogs, albeit with variations within the form (I doubt that they were all identical). That being said, I'm firmly in the wings camp, and also believe (but not as strongly) that balrogs were capable of flight.

Iluvatar


----------



## Greymantle

Let it be known that I agree with Mike on this long-debated and never-ending issue.

As for shape-changing Maiar, by the time LotR rolled around, I don't believe most of the Maiar actually changed shape, though they had the ability too. I think the Balrogs and the Istari retained their shape pretty much all their time on M-E. Sauron was forced into a single shape, I believe...


----------



## El-ahrairah

Hehe, I seemed to have not ended the debate as I had hoped. No Nobel Prize for me 

Perhaps my my use of words was wrong, I take the stance of Iluvatar when he/she says

"of course, a shadow appearing to spread like wings becomes less surprising once you realise that the item casting the shadow *has* wings"

The shadows would be larger, hence you would see them first.

Also I am not taking the stance that ALL Balrogs have wings. I am simply stating you cannot say ALL Balrogs DO NOT have wings.


----------



## Gothmog

Of course I can say that ALL BALROGS DO NOT HAVE WINGS!!! This is MY interpretation of the writings of JRR Tolkien. What I cannot say is that YOUR interpretation is WRONG. Just as you cannot say that MY interpretation is WRONG. There is NO proof either way. However, if you look through the threads there is a link to an article on Balrog wings, if it still works, which you could read and make your choice.

You will find the link on the thread "BALROGS....." by Kraas on the Silmarillion board. It still works.


----------



## Rosie Cotton

I don't picture balrogs as having wings, but it definately seems possible for Tolkien to have intended for at least some balrogs to have them.


----------



## Iluvatar

Um, when I read a statement reading "you can't argue this or you can't argue that" I assume that the statement is made simply for rhetorical effect. If I disagree with the sentiment behind the statement I will indeed argue, but I will de so by advancing my case rationally (or at least as close to rational as I can get). I will definitely refrain from yelling.


----------



## Talierin

This is pretty much my view on Balrog's wings: http://greenbooks.theonering.net/guest/files/080101.html


----------



## Lantarion

Perhaps, at first, the Balrog drew its shadow to such an enormous form that it seemed that two vast shadow-'wings' were stretching out, but then he actually presented real wings, with the possible intention to fly. He could have flown above the Company, and smoked 'em all from above; but perhaps Gandalf's brave stand made him curious, and he decided to tackle the Grey Wanderer first. And although he had 'unfurled' his wings, he couldn't fly out of the abyss as Gandalf was lobbing curses at him and hitting him with his staff. And the 'tunnels' that are briefly described can't be underwater, because they would have crumbled over the years. So the Balrog could have flown up a few feet to the entrance of the caves, and dashed in; while Gandalf, being an Istar, probably just said some great spell and hovered up after the brute.
It is my opinion that all Balrogs CAN have wings, but some, like Gothmog the Lord of Balrogs, didn't seem to think he needed them on the battlefield. This I have gathered from a few paintings I have seen by various artists, and this comment should not be taken as a personal insult to one's personal feelings.


----------



## Thorin

> _Originally posted by Talierin _
> *This is pretty much my view on Balrog's wings: http://greenbooks.theonering.net/guest/files/080101.html *



Great article, Talierin. It made me really question my initial assumption that Balrogs have wings. Because I love the idea and it makes the Balrog scarier, I ignored a lot of the questions that the article brought up. I do have to place my vote on the side of "no wings".

Many people study the Bible the same way. They take one or two passages that support their opinion without looking at numerous others that state otherwise. The only place in Tolkien's works that imply wings is the one at Khazad-dhum. There are many other references that either seemingly contradict it, or do not give it any support. BUT I WANT THEM TO HAVE WINGS!!!!!


----------



## Gothmog

Iluvatar,

If you look at my posting you will see that it is not ALL caps. Certain of the words and phrases have capitalised to emphasise the importance of them. This was done in the same way as El-harairah emphasised certain parts of his posting.


Pontifex,

While I respect your opinion about Balrog Wings, where you say "This I have gathered from a few paintings by various artists" you are in fact relying on the interpretation of someone else. the only place where there is information to use in forming an opinion about this subject is in the writings of JRR Tolkien.


Thorin,

If that is the case, Then GIVE them Wings!!!
After all, they are YOUR Balrogs....


----------



## Telchar

> _Originally posted by Thorin _
> *
> 
> That is not necessarily true, Telchar. Considering Tolkien said that there were probably only 7 Balrogs, they were probably all the same...that's why they were all called Balrogs. Taking the shape of a specific "race" would imply the same parameters of those who take it. Look at the Istari, they all had staffs and the same powers, they probably looked quite the same as well*



Comparing the Istari and the Balrogs is, well, probably not the ringht two things to compare.. As for the numbers of Balrogs, there are mentioned atlest 7 Balrogs in the stories, but there where probably many more not mentioned, and I would guess many where slain in the war of wrath.


----------



## Cian

Thorin is (likely ) referring to a note revealed in _The Annals of Aman_ specifically regarding Balrog numbers. Cf ~ the phrase 'host of Balrogs' was changed > 'his Balrogs', and:

_"'There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at the most 7 ever existed.'"_JRRT


----------



## Ancalagon

'Can they fly? That is another question altogether'.

I think you are absolutely spot-on when you ask this question. There is no doubt that they have either a semblance of wings or actual wings. Whether they can actually use them to elevate themselves is the real debate. Why then did the Balrog not glide or fly from the chasm in Moria when he was cast down with Gandalf? Ahhh, the endless options open to scrutiny are what makes Tolkiens work so wonderful.


----------



## Lantarion

Gothmog:
Yes indeed it is another person's interpretation, and I worded my sentences incorrectly. What I meant was that the artists' interpreatations were identical to my own, and that they only back up my opinion of Balrogs having wings. I had 'realized' from the LotR that they have, IMO, great, black wings, and although I did not base my opinion on the paintings of, eg John Howe, they reinforced in a way my belief.


----------



## El-ahrairah

Well I can see that the best way for Peter Jackson to handle this issue would be to only show quick glimpses of the Balrog in Moria: "was that a wing?".

For if he makes a choice and shows the creature outright, those of the opinion that differs will probably not pay to see the next two films, waiting for Morpheus to offer them for free. Hehe, to those people, don't be so superficial!


----------



## Cian

Also, Tolkien penned (an earlier version) of the same scene, Morgoth being saved after his cry ~ to his aid came _orcs_ and Balrogs in that version.


----------



## Eomer Dinmention

i'm guessing that the balrogs didn't becuase if they had wings then when the balrog took gandalf down why didn't the balrog fly back up 
but i'm only guessing


----------



## Greymantle

Yup. Same thing when Glorfindel battled a Balrog, they were killed by falling of a cliff. TaLLLLLLLLLLLLL posted a link to a good essay on this subject, somewhere....here it is: http://greenbooks.theonering.net/gu...les/080101.html
I was already convinced Balrogs didn't have wings, but this cemented it.

Edit: Take a wild guess.

Fixed Link --<B>--


----------



## Silnarion

I think that balrogs had wings, but obviously not wings like we know the avian species of our world to have. Tolkien implies that these wings were quasi real, a mixture of shadow and magic...almost fluid, like an umbrous barometer of the balrog's innate power. As to whether or not they enabled flight I wouldnt doubt it, or at least some sort of gliding capability for controlled descent. 
Someone in the above thread was wondering if all balrogs looked alike. I dont think they did, but one (poor bastard) should have been able to identify a balrog for what it was, if it was encountered. I would think that there would have been some variety in balrog girth and height, a variety in the amount or color of its personal emolation. The shape and size of its surrounding shadowy essence or wings might have differed depending on its power level. I think that Gothmog would have looked different from the LOTR balrog if compared side to side. I think would have been obvious which balrog was the dominant spirit. You would be comparing a Captain to lower ranking entity.
I cant find my Silmarillion, but I would like to revisit all the descriptions and story line concerning the Balrogs of the First Age. Im sure there are hints and phrases that could help this thread.


----------



## Merlin

> _Originally posted by Thorondor _
> *
> I am also suprised that no one has brought up the point Why didn't the Balrog fly out of the Abyss with its wings? Shadows can't fly, and wings can.
> *



Well they may have had wings and still not be able to fly, but fly/hop short distances kind of like big fat chickens?  The great thing about books is that they leave something for your own imagination --to fill in the gaps. Therefore in my Tolkien world, Balrogs _do_ have wings (I just like it better that way  )


----------



## Silnarion

Excellent article. I like then to think that the "wings" were merely part of a balrog's overall shifting specter of unlight and quasi-shadow.


----------



## Talierin

Yeah, that's pretty much what I think they were too.


----------



## Gandalf White

*Probably*

I'm not exactly sure how to say this. I believe the Balrog may have had "useless" wings. I imagine him with wings like a bat, but incapable of flight. Just a thought.


----------



## Obelaine

I was talking with my dad and he asked me how could balrogs have real wings if him and gandalf fell? If it had "real" wings it wouldnt have fallen. At least thats what i think.


----------



## Telchar

But then again, a person that belives that the Balrogs did have wings, not that i do, would then say that there might not have been enough room for him to unfold his wings..


----------



## Lantarion

Or the poor beast might have been in some considerable pain, what with Gandalf hacking at him and all..


----------



## The Dark Walker

To be honest i always thouhgt Balrogs had wings, but if he did why didn't he just fly over Gandalfs head on the bridge?


----------



## Lantarion

Welcome, Dark Walker! Hmph, you're new to the forum so I won't bother you too much about it; but it has been stated many times that possible reasons for the Balrog's incapability to fly out of the abyss were a) Gandalf was thwacking him round the head with Glamdring, or b) There was not enough space to unfurl his extensive wingspan. Sorry, not a very encouraging welcome  . But seriously, welcome.
On the other hand, if his wings were only of flame and shadow, they would have been extinguished when he fell; and perhaps Gandalf had a few tricks up his beard.


----------



## Greymantle

But of course, this is not the opinion of all the persons of this forum... I am sturdily in the Wingless camp, myself. Though, of course, we are a minority.


----------



## The Dark Walker

O.k, new question if the Balrog had such a large wingspan then he must have been a huge titan that could stomped ol' Gandalf over the head instead of taffin' about!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Greymantle

I would have _thought_ that given the fact that this is _Tolkien_ we're talking about, isn't the triumph of the "little guy" a really important theme?


----------



## The Dark Walker

Yeah but having the Balrog kill Gandalf only to be wiped out by the Fellowship's fury would be much more heroic


----------



## Lantarion

Heroism is a synonym for stupidity, if you ask me.  Yes, it would have been more heroic, but the rest of the Company would have been killed as well!
And I agree that the 'little one' usually prevails in Tolkien's stories. On the other hand, it cannot be told if Gandalf was stronger than the Balrog before he was reincarnated.. 
And DW, a creature doesn't have to be enormous to have a large wingspan. It depends on how big the distance between the tips of the wings, and on the width of the Abyss, but I would say that the Balrog was quite big indeed. But if Gandalf unleashes his fury and utmost might and anger onto any creature, they don't have much of a choise but to scamper out of the way, as the Balrog wisely did (didn't help a lot, he was still grilled, but anyway..).


----------



## BelDain

I was just reading the Lord of the Rings appendices and noticed an interesting passage that tells of the Balrog Durin's folk encountered; presumably the same one that Gandalf later battles. It says the Balrog flew from Angband.

So perhaps the Balrogs do have huge wings and can fly well and fast but it was the relatively small size of the chasm that did not allow this Balrog to swoop up and out and save itself.


----------



## Earnil

I am totally 100% on the side of Balrog's having Wings.
I would go into this argument with more detail but I won't I have already become bored with discussing the Topic of Balrog's having Wings over at Tolkien Online. 

All I am going to say about this debate is, even though Tolkien described balrogs as having wings, I think it is all up to the readers. It is all in the eye (or mind) of the beholder. I'm basically saying that everyone chooses to interpret LOTR and certain parts of it differently. And thus we each have our own opinion which diffifers from each other person's interpretation.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by BelDain _
> I was just reading the Lord of the Rings appendices and noticed an interesting passage that tells of the Balrog Durin's folk encountered; presumably the same one that Gandalf later battles. It says the Balrog flew from Angband.



The quote reads:

_"Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the comming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth."_ Appendix A _III Durin's Folk_

And also from Appendix A _III Durin's Folk_:

_"For he saw that all his host in the valley was in a rout, and the Dwarves went this way and that slaying as they would, and those that would escape from them were flying south, shrieking as they ran."_

Certainly "fleeing" can easily fit into the context of both quotes. And the Balrog has something to flee from in any case, I think. 

And yes, Tolkien used the word "wings" in a description of the Balrog, not exactly the same as describing the Balrog with physical bat-wings though.


----------



## JeffF.

*Definitely No Wings*

The description of the Balrog in Moria said two shadows 'like wings' and the placement of that a few lines before the sentence saying 'wings extended' makes it apply to that second description as well. 

As final proof the Balrog would not fall into the chasm by Gandalph's destruction of the narrow bridge if he had wings. He'd simply have flown across the chasm.


----------



## BelDain

*Re: Definitely No Wings*



> _Originally posted by JeffF. _
> *The description of the Balrog in Moria said two shadows 'like wings' and the placement of that a few lines before the sentence saying 'wings extended' makes it apply to that second description as well.
> 
> As final proof the Balrog would not fall into the chasm by Gandalph's destruction of the narrow bridge if he had wings. He'd simply have flown across the chasm. *



Yes, Thangorodrim not Angband. Thanks Cian.

Anyway. There are only two ways the Balrogs could fly. Wings or some sort of magical or innate power of levitation. If the former were the case as many are argueing here then it would make sense that the cave and the chasm obstructed the optimal functionality of the wings to either carry the Balrog over the chasm or lift it out of the chasm once it had fallen.

If the Balrog could fly through some sort of levitation power then the Balrog falling really would make no sense at all because the physical attributes of wings would play no part. It could simply "float" up out of the chasm. This reasoning makes me think that if the Balrog was indeed flying, as in up in the air, it had to have physical wings.

Of course there are two other a little bit wilder possibilities.
1) The Balrog did have levitation powers that granted it "flight" but the power is somehow impeded by being inside the mountain.
2) Sometimes if someone is driving fast we might say they are flying down the road. So perhaps Tolkien meant the Balrog flying as to say it was moving at great speed from Thangorodrim.

Or wait. Perhaps one of the Balrog's powers is to create physical wings for itself out of its own substance of shadow and flame such that once it extended it's wings of shadow they did indeed become manifested wings.


----------



## Lantarion

But the Balrog would look VERY silly without wings, IMHO! Just look at Ted Nasmith's painting of the Balrog! I think he's not good at painting people or creatures, but he's possibly the best painter of landscapes.
Of course, that is Mr. Nasmith's interpretation. But I think the Balrog is a lot more intimidating with wings. And I think that whatever they were, even if they were just shadows and fire 'like wings', they suffice for a scary profile of a huge, fire-shadow-bat.


----------



## The Phony Pope

Here is an EXACT quote directly from the book, proving that the Balrog most likely DID NOT have wings

"The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings..."

Before when they describe the Balrog in more detail they do not mention wings. Only does it mention them when it met with Gandalf at the bridge, and its shadows reached out LIKE two vast wings, the key word here begin 'like'.


----------



## Gothmog

Just a thought, I recall reading some years ago, an article about putting wings on a man. In this article it talked about the muscles needed to power the wings in a flying creature. Now these would have to be very powerful to be able to move the wings so as to achive flight. Well according to the workings out of the author it seems that the pectoral muscles would have to be of such size that the chest of our man would have been about 6 feet infront of his nose. 

Another point. All of the animals, birds and other creatures including the forms taken by the Valar and the Maiar seem as far as I can remember to be possessed of four limbs. So why would there be only one small group that goes against this view and have Six limbs?


----------



## The Phony Pope

Here is the address of a document writing about wether Balrogs had wings or not (or more precisely, if they could fly or not, but it doesn't really matter).

http://tolkien.cro.net/balrogs/fly.html


----------



## Evenstar

I have always pictured Balrogs without wings; just surrounded by a mist of darkness. IMO a creature strong enough to challenge Gandalf would look silly with useless "ostrich" wings. Now I understand and appreciate the explanations as to why the Balrog had useful wiongs and could not fly out of the pit- I personally just don't buy them. I just imagine the Balrog as an equal to Gandlaf and I would rather it have a similar shape.

However, I believe that this is a matter of interpretation so to each his own.


----------



## pippin le qer

*balrog wings*

is n't there a line in the Silmarillion abouth Balrogs flying around the tines of Gondolin in the siege and fall of that elvencity?. flying requires wings unless you can get an airoplane. Tolkien didn't use airoplanes in his books, so Balrogs had wings question answered


----------



## The Phony Pope

I just read that part in the Silmarillion and I saw no evidence tat Balrogs could fly at all


----------



## pippin le qer

then's my memory a little bit rusty I've read it abouth 10 years ago


----------



## Nazgul_Lord

Once and for all, Blarogs have wings, it says it in the fellowship of the ring, and in the silmarillion, and it shows it in the movie. But they can not fly.


----------



## JeffF.

*It Is Not Decided...*

...the passages in the Fellowship of the Ring are debatable as you can read in this long thread. The Silmarillion and the various volumes of History of Middle Earth NEVER describe Balrogs as having wings.

it is left to each reader to decide for him or herself as it should be. it's like that along debat of Uruks/Uruk-Hai. netiher side can be swayed by the other. The beauty of LOTR is that we don't need to be if we don't want to. It's fiction so the book and story means something different to each and every one of us. 

The benefit of all these discussions is not who wins in the end or even who has the most votes for any particular view. The beauty and benefit is in the ver discussion we have with other folks who have a passion for the same topic.

respects to all fellow Middle Earth admirers,

JeffF.


----------



## TulKas Astaldo

1) Gothmog didn't have wings. This is a widely accepted fact... But Gothmog was the only son of Morgoth, not a true Balrog.

2) The Balrog, if it had wings, could have at least used them to slow itself when it fell from Khazad-Dum. Again with the Balrog Glorfindel slew, and again with the Balrogs running down 'faster than a river of fire' in The Silmarillion... I don't picture a river as flying, nor do I something that runs.

3) Tolkien himself stated in one of his letters that balrogs do not have true wings. I think this one pretty much sums it all up, but I don't have an exact letter number...


----------



## Lantarion

The way some of you people describe the Balrog reminds me of a burning, seven-foot, thick-skinned monster with horns, and who has a fiery whip and sword in his hands. Just take a look at the picture of the Balrog in the 2002 Tolkien Calendar: ridiculous! The Balrogs were Maiar, demi-gods with substantial magical powers. I think the movie-depiction of the Valarauka (which is its Quenya name) is very accurate indeed, at least to my mind.


----------



## Nocturno

*Aerodinamics*

Sorry if the word is not spelled right (I speak spanish).
But I have read enough about birds and their way of flying as principles of aerodinamics.
The general rule is to have a wing shaped so that the air below runs much faster than above.
Most of the birds and bats actually glide on the air and only flap their wings to start flight or change their course or altitude.
The smallest of birds and the insects flap their wings all the time to fly.
That doesn't happen with the great birds.
A vulture would glide almost of the time and has a really hard time to get off the air when departing from the ground.
What is this all about?
A balrog (given his size) would glide, not flap his wings, or he would need to be extremely light or have a very different muscle system (after all it is described as man-like).
So it's no wonder if he couldn't fly inside a cave!
He would need a lot of room, a hot air current from below, and the chance to spread his wings (after all Gandalf was battling with it) to deterr his fall.
The fall doesn't prove he didn't have wings.
And afterwards, when cast off the mountain, you could bet he was badly hurt.
I am for wings! They explain much more than they confuse, from the Silmarillion to the LOTR.


----------



## Gothmog

How can they explain anything in the Silmarillion?


----------



## Taranir

*No wings*

In Silmarillion there were no writing about Balrogs with wings. Professor would have includet those wings in his description of B:s, if there were wings. Nor were they flying at any point.


----------



## dgoof911

Personally, I do not think they had wings. Looking at what Readwryt said earlier, "The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm." , makes me agree that Tolkien is desribing the shadow, which appears to take the form of wings. So maybe it has shadow wings but, shadow does not take the form of solid, which you would obivously need to be able fly. 

Also, I don't think you can use the movie as an example for the Balrog having wings. It is the "movie" not the book, and how every thing looks is not accurate to what Tolkien described in th book. The Balrog is just someones idea of what it would look like.


----------



## greypilgrim

i think he had wings......what else would cause such a shadow?
and his wings were spread from wall to wall. i can only come to one conclusion, his wings made the shadow, and then he drew himself up to his full height, and spread his wings. thats my tale, others may be devised.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by greypilgrim _
> i think he had wings......what else would cause such a shadow?



A shadow 

_"... their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named ..."_ JRRT LQS


----------



## greypilgrim

i'm sorry, but a shadow cannot cast another shadow, in middle earth or anywhere. the balrog's wings cast the shadow.


----------



## Lantarion

Taranir: I had posted that post on a different thread, where I believe you were inquiring about the Balrog's wings. I did not ask for it to be moved, but I find that the Moderators seem to enjoy flipping posts idly around the place. There was no reason, Mr. Moderator, to move my post from its original position, most of all because it makes no sense for it to be moved to *this* thread, as I inserted a link to this thread!! Please, the next time you want to move one of my posts, I would be much obliged if you asked for my consent first. *whew* 

But greypilgrim, the book does not say anything cast a shadow, but that the Balrog's shadow stretched out like two vast wings. The Balrog is made of some strange, ethereal flame and deep shadow, and he was fluffing it about probably to intimidate Gandalf on the rickety little bridge.


----------



## greypilgrim

*balrogs wings*

there seems to be alot of debate on this subject. i think this will be my last comment on it:


one balrog, hot, with wings on the side.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by greypilgrim _
> i'm sorry, but a shadow cannot cast another shadow, in middle earth or anywhere. the balrog's wings cast the shadow.



Who said cast shadow though? The Balrog was cloaked in darkness, it's shadow reached out like wings  or fluffed out?


----------



## Beorn

> _Originally posted by Pontifex _
> *Taranir: I had posted that post on a different thread, where I believe you were inquiring about the Balrog's wings. I did not ask for it to be moved, but I find that the Moderators seem to enjoy flipping posts idly around the place. There was no reason, Mr. Moderator, to move my post from its original position, most of all because it makes no sense for it to be moved to *this* thread, as I inserted a link to this thread!! Please, the next time you want to move one of my posts, I would be much obliged if you asked for my consent first. *whew*
> *



Just a side note Ponti...I think you posted that on another thread for Balrog Wings, and the two got merged...


----------



## Beleg Strongbow

If they did have wings could he use them? I think not cause he would have not been able 2 practise in the deep places eg. moria,utumno, angband....


----------



## Mina Pitcher

*Have you ever even read it????*

 
Try reading "The bridge of Kazad-dum! It clearly states:


> And its wings were spread from wall to wall.


 So there!


----------



## Cian

> "Over the land there lies a long shadow,
> westward reaching wings of darkness." JRRT RotK


----------



## Mormegil

Balrogs didn't have wings.

Reasons why.....
1) "In the front of that fire came Glaurung the Golden, father of Dragons, in his full might; and in his train were Balrogs."
(The Silmarillion, Of The Ruin Of Beleriand)

Glaurung was not a flying Dragon, so if the Balrogs were in his train that means that they were walking. 
Why walk if you have wings??

2) "the duel of Glorfindel with the Balrog upon a pinnacle of rock in that high place; and both fell to ruin in the abyss."
(The Silmarillion, Of Tuor And The Fall Of Gondolin)

If Balrogs had wings, why didn't the Balrog just fly and leave Glorfindel to fall into the abyss alone??

3) "And the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings"
(The Fellowship of The Ring, The Bridge Of Khazad-Dum)

Balrogs were cloaked in darkness. This particular Balrog's shadow stretched out LIKE wings.

The next quote,
"and it's wings were spread from wall to wall"
(The Fellowship Of The Ring, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum)
Refers to the aforementioned 'wings' of shadow.

4) "With a terrible cry the Balrog fell foreward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished"
(The Fellowship Of The Ring, The Bridge Of Khazad-Dum)

Again, if Balrogs had wings, why did this Balrog fall, why didn't it use it's wings to fly back to a safe ledge or something??

5) Overall, the only thing that suggests that Balrogs had wings is the "its wings were spread from wall to wall" quote. but this can be ruled out by the referance, about twelve lines before, to the Balrog's wings of shadow.
There is far more evidence that Balrogs do not have wings.

So, in conclusion, Balrogs do not have wings.


----------



## Ithrynluin

This is a very troublesome topic. I personally think they did have wings. Tolkien is very ambiguous in many of his texts,though I think he said in one of his letters that balrogs were wingless.
I guess it's up to you to decide.
I'll be back with a quote.


----------



## Cian

Tolkien eventually wrote that his Balrogs were _"cloaked in darkness"._ And I note:



> "Over the land there lies a long shadow,
> westward reaching wings of darkness." JRRT RotK



Hmmm, a long _shadow_ is here described as "reaching wings" of darkness ... and in FotR the _shadow_ about the Balrog "reached" out like (vast!) wings ...

... nope, haven't made my mind up yet


----------



## Lantarion

Oh noo, not this again. It's not that the question isn't good, on the contrary, but it has always been a subject of great disagreement. 
Anyway, I think that all Balrogs had wings in the form of sinews created by shadows and darkness. So not really wings in the sense of flying devices, but in a very effective scarer-offer of troublesome little things like Istari and Elves and such. 
But they're still wings, IMHO.


----------



## Ingo

ok...mabye someone said the but if the bolrog did have wings couldnt it had flown up instead of falling down the casm and it wouldnt of had to use the long stair case to climb back up


----------



## Theoden

I don't think they do because the one fell at Kaza Dum... if he had wings, would he not have flown?

-me


----------



## Lantarion

Ingo and Theoden, would you please at least attempt to read the previous posts? You would find that your question is already 'answered', in the form of another person's opinion. I would quote the answer but I won't. 
Instead I'll tell you: the Balrog had just been caught by surprise, and didn't really have time to react; he could have flown out before he hit the water at the bottom, but Gandalf was flogging the poor beast with his sword the whole time. And it can't be very easy to take off and fly out of water, so that answers why he ran up the passages and stairs. 
This is all supposing that the Balrog actually has working, muscular wings, so don't shoot me down just yet.  
It is just MHO, however, that the Balrog's wings were composed solely of ethereal and fiery essense, instead of muscles, tendons and bone.


----------



## Elu Thingol

Ok I have just looked at this thread, so if my arguments already been brought up please tell me. Many have been saying that there is no evidence whatsoever in the Sil that Balrogs had wings. However I found this quote:



> and now swiftly they arose, and* passing over Hithlum* they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.



I take 'passing over' to mean that they may have been flying. He could have said 'passing through'.

PS: I will be gone a couple of weeks so will not be able to respond


----------



## Cian

There are plenty of examples of "over" that do not mean "flying over" however -- the riders pursuing the Balchoth "over the fields of Calenardhon" for one, where Tolkien could have written "through" here as well. Even another with Hithlum involved.



> " ... and ere the winter was come he sent great strength over Hithlum and Nivrost, ..."



That's a descrip of an assault by Morgoth's forces from _The Grey Annals_

I do not think that Tolkien was 'revealing' something about Balrogs and flight here with this usage, ie usage that can easily be applied with non-flying things.


----------



## CyberGhostface

I think they have wings.


----------



## HelplessModAddi

In my opinion, Balrogs have long, thin membranes of shadow that they can either wrap up around themselves, making them appear larger and/or scarier, or extend from themeselves, creating an appearance of wings.

Take it one way, its a mysterious blot of darkness.

Take it another way, its a pair of wings.

Take it another way, its a veil of shadow, concealing what is behind.

In the movie, the Balrog seemed to be an enourmous fiery minotaur creature. However, I do not remember wings. I personally never knew what to believe, but I just didn't picture Balrogs with wings.


----------



## Elfarmari

> _Originally posted by Pontifex _
> *It is just MHO, however, that the Balrog's wings were composed solely of ethereal and fiery essense, instead of muscles, tendons and bone. *



I agree totally. IMHO, it would be odd to have balrogs fall to their death so often if they had working wings. I think this is just one of those things where Tolkien was not very explicit, and therefore we can think whatever we want!


----------



## Chymaera

Some Balrogs had wings and flew
Some Balrogs and wings and did not fly
And some Balrogs never had wings

NOW we can end this thread 

why all the fuss?


----------



## Beorn

> What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.





> The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the *shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.* It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils. But Gandalf stood firm.
> `You cannot pass,' he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. `I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.'
> The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and *its wings were spread from wall to wall;* but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: gray and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.



I'm surprised no one has pointed this out...It says first that it was like a great shadow....Then, it says *the shadow was like wings*, not that the wings were like a shadow...Just as a bird can use its wings to cover something...The shadow was like that bird's wings, and was covering the man-shape...

So, there is nothing saying that the wings didn't exist, only saying that they did....


----------



## Beorn

Wouldn't that be Malbeth? What is being said is that anything can take on the shape of wings.

What I was saying is that the wings were not shadows, the shadows had taken shape of wings....

That quote actually does support my idea. My idea is simply that the word wings can be anything, and that winglike shadows are not shadowlike wings.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Beorn _
> What I was saying is that the wings were not shadows, the shadows had taken shape of wings....



Shadows taking shape of wings would be shadows to my mind (but still can be called "wings" in any event). You've lost me here


----------



## Beorn

> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *You've lost me here  *



As you have me...


----------



## Cian

Perhaps this will help. What do you think the "wings" were made of?

My opinion is that Balrogs were cloaked in darkness (see _Morgoth's Ring_), and during the Moria confrontation this darkness/shadow reached out _like wings_ ~ the shadow of a bird can have "wings" too, though the winged shadow of a bird is a cast shadow, while the Balrog has an 'unlight' about it that momentarilly reached out (ie not flesh-type permanent wings like a bat or bird or similar).


----------



## Lantarion

> _Last posted by Pontifex_
> *It is just MHO, however, that the Balrog's wings were composed solely of ethereal and fiery essense, instead of muscles, tendons and bone. *



As an answer to your question, Cian.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

But what were Numenorean wings made of?


----------



## Cian

LoL Tar-E. I'll let folks judge that question for themselves:



> "... for the Sea-men spread great cloths like wings to catch the airs, and bind them to tall poles like trees of the forest." JRRT



Then later on in the paragraph:



> " ... and ever one of the accursed ships hath black wings." JRRT



And later on therein, even:



> "The foul wings of the Sea-men have not been seen in these waters for many a year; ..." JRRT



Quotes from _Tal-Elmar_

My only question is why sail when one can fly? Well, they did love the sea I guess 

Ah the setup


----------



## Lantarion

Haha, a flying ship! With black wings!!   LOL


----------



## Flame of Anor

I found a site that goes into a lengthy discussion on whether or not balrogs had wings or not. The site is The Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda The section with the info on the balrogs is located here:
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm?[url]http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/b/balrogs.html[/url]


----------



## Muffinly

*Do Balrogs have wings?*

I just had to ask.


----------



## Ponte

Here is a thread that is about if balogrs had wings or not.

And i choosed that they had wings.


----------



## Muffinly

Ok. I didn't see it


but now I voted no


----------



## e.Blackstar

yes balrogs have wings

then why doesnt it fly out of the chasm?personally,i think that its wings are just to weak to support it 

do tell
what is your thery


----------



## Minas

The book says wings, so I say wings. There are plenty of flightless birds around with wings that can flap.


----------



## Cian

> Originally posted by Minas: *The book says wings, so I say wings. There are plenty of flightless birds around with wings that can flap. *



The book (author of the) uses the word 'wings' very many times, and of course, does not always mean physical bird-wings (or similar).

Shadow-shapes that look or act like wings are indeed wings, and 'wings' need be nothing more (but they will yet be shadow, and not necessarilly permanent).


----------



## Ynhockey

I don't think balrogs had wings and the evidence also points to that. I think his shadow had wings, though, because his shadow was like a spirit of its own... but then again, he was a Maia so he could have wings at one time and then not have them anymore.


----------



## *Anarie*

Balrogs do have wings, it is clearly mentioned in LotR book.
You'll probably ask me ''then why didn't it fly out in Moria?". So what, ostriches and penguins also have wings, but you don't really expect them to fly, do you?


----------



## Ynhockey

But that's not the point against wings. If he had wings materially, he couldnt've fit through the door to the bridge hall or Khazad-Dum, so he was obviously only about the size of a man, as stated in one of the other Tolkien works (i forget which). So, don't be so sure...


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by *Anarie* _
> *Balrogs do have wings, it is clearly mentioned in LotR book.*



Well the word 'wings' is clearly used in a description, but I don't think that's the same thing as the Balrog unquestionably having bat wings (or something ).

The word wings does not have to mean permanent physical appendages (like those of a bat or bird or similar) when it appears in a description, and indeed does not in various Tolkien examples.

[welcome by the way]


----------



## FREEDOM!

I thought if they had wings that he would have flown (or hovered) instead of falling in a pit.


----------



## Spartan117

I agree with "STrider(aragorn". If I had wings, i would have saved myself the swimming lesson. (He fell into a big water pit thingy).


----------



## Beorn

> I thought if they had wings that he would have flown (or hovered) instead of falling in a pit.





> I agree with "STrider(aragorn". If I had wings, i would have saved myself the swimming lesson. (He fell into a big water pit thingy).



Read the following:



> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> *I always picture the Balrog w/ wings. Why couldn't he both have wings AND strech out a shadowy muck? And the reason why he didn't fly out of the abyss in Moria is (in my opinion) because Gandalf, a very powerful Maia and wizard, was kicking his ass (pardon my French), and the poor, ickle Balroggy-woggy was probably in the throws of fairly sizeable clutches of pain, and couldn't function properly. When he cooled off (ie, almost drowned in the freezing water under the Bridge), he most likely ran off into the fabled tunnels under Khazad-Dum, and eventually scampered into the Tower, where he fell. *





> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> *Or the poor beast might have been in some considerable pain, what with Gandalf hacking at him and all.. *


----------



## Gothmog

I was not going to post any more on this thread but to answer some points about Gandalf 'Hacking away at this poor vertualy defensless Balrog'


> The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.
> From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming.
> Glamdring glittered white in answer.
> There was a ringing clash and a stab of white fire. The Balrog fell back and its sword flew up in molten fragments. The wizard swayed on the bridge, stepped back a pace, and then again stood still.
> 'You cannot pass! ' he said.
> With a bound the Balrog leaped full upon the bridge. Its whip whirled
> and hissed.
> 'He cannot stand alone! ' cried Aragorn suddenly and ran back along the bridge. 'Elendil!' he shouted. 'I am with you, Gandalf! '
> `Gondor! ' cried Boromir and leaped after him.
> At that moment Gandalf lifted his staff, and crying aloud he smote the bridge before him. The staff broke asunder and fell from his hand. A blinding sheet of white flame sprang up. The bridge cracked. Right at the Balrog's feet it broke, and the stone upon which it stood crashed into the gulf, while the rest remained, poised, quivering like a tongue of rock thrust out into emptiness.
> With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished. But even as it fell it swung its whip, and the thongs lashed and curled about the wizard's knees, dragging him to the brink. He staggered and fell, grasped vainly at the stone, and slid into the abyss. 'Fly, you fools! ' he cried, and was gone.


 So the Balrog struck once with his sword which Gandalf defended against destroying the Balrog's sword. Next Gandalf struck the Bridge with his staff which broke the bridge and his staff. At this point the Balrog starts to fall. He is not being 'Hacked at' by Gandalf who is too far away at this point to do any such thing. The Balrog then swings his Whip to catch Gandlaf and pull him down after himself. So the only reason that the Balrog cannot fly out of the chasm is that he has no wings capable of allowing him to do so. This means that:-
1. He has no wings.
2. His wings are Too Small for him to fly.
3. His wings are Too Big to use in such a confined space.

No 1 seems to be a reasonable view.
No 2 seems to make the Balorg look like a clown.
No 3 seems to be a reasonable view.

Myself I do not believe that the Balrog had wings. I feel that what is in the book is a description of a shadow caused by an Un-Light similar to that of Ungoliant. Others take a different view.


----------



## Lantarion

That's what I think too! And that's what surprised me in the FotR-movie: if the Balrog is a spirit of flame and shadow, why would the ground tremble when he walks? Strange, wouldn't you say? 
I think the Balrog could control the shadowy essense in him to create a more menacing form (eg. huge, dark wings), but I don't see why any part of him would be flesh and bone, if he is a 'spirit of flame and shadow'.


----------



## Éomond

It had wings, but, I don't know why it didn't fly. Maybe because:

1.When Gandalf said it couldn't pass, so the belrog could fly or anything.
2.*It can only fly in the Shadow World* 

Those are my guesses.


----------



## Elfstone

If the Balrog had physical wings,why didn't it just use them when he fell into the pit???????????? I mean was he that stupid?


----------



## Beorn

Please read this *entire* thread for the answer to that question, or my post on this thread (4 or 5 posts before this). The former would be preferred.


----------



## Éomond

I'm going on that! 

*Belrogs can only fly in the Shadow World.* 

And in the movie you'll see the Belrog has wings, but only the "bones."


----------



## Beorn

> _Originally posted by Isildur _
> *I'm going on that!
> 
> Belrogs can only fly in the Shadow World.
> 
> And in the movie you'll see the Belrog has wings, but only the "bones." *



What does what's in the movie matter? In that case, since in the movie Glorfindel doesn't exist, he doesn't exist in the book...


----------



## Muffinly

Yes, and there is no Tom Bombadil.


----------



## Diamond Took

oh my gosh muffinly do you like muffins because they are my favourite food in the whole wide world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 


*ahem*

Yes I always thought that Balrogs had wings. 
In the book i didn't really picture the balrog at all, but in the movie he had wings, so, i just guess that he has wings.
He looks kinda cute with the wings though.  
but the horns on the face? *No* i'm afraid. just NOOOOOOOOOOOO.


----------



## Sivien

*For the last time: Do Balrogs have wings?*

Personally, I think they don't. If the Balrog of Moria did have wings, couldn't it just have flown out of the gap beneath the Bridge? It didn't so it couldn't have had any wings.
Besides, Tolkien said "like wings", not "wings". Anyway, it does not mention Balrogs having wings anywhere in the Silmarillion. 
Thank you for reading my rant
Sivien


----------



## In Flames

This is one hard nut to crack. 

I find it impossible to say if Balrogs have wings, just look at these two quotes.



> "His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings."


If i only read that part i'd say they did not have wings.




> "...suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall..."


If i only read that part i would say that they had wings.

But...we will never know!


----------



## Gothmog

> _Originally posted by In Flames _
> *This is one hard nut to crack.
> But...we will never know! *



Wrong. We WILL know.

Some WILL know that they *Have* wings  
Some WILL know that they *Do Not Have* wings  

Guess which I *Know*


----------



## In Flames

Ah come one tell us then Gothmog, after all you are a Balrog..
Just look over you shoulder and tell us if you see any wings back there.


----------



## Gothmog

Nope!! Just a Great BIG un-light that I spread out like huge wings of Darkness.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by Gothmog _
> *Nope!! Just a Great BIG un-light that I spread out like huge wings of Darkness.  *



Oh,come now! I saw you once Gothmog and you were in the air - flying & stuff! So Balrogs DO have wings!!!!


----------



## Gothmog

That wasn't 'Flying' That was 'Falling'!!

Ancalagon wouldn't carry me any further.


----------



## Theoden

> _Originally posted by Gothmog _
> *
> 
> Wrong. We WILL know.
> 
> Some WILL know that they Have wings
> Some WILL know that they Do Not Have wings
> 
> Guess which I Know  *



hehehehehe

-me


----------



## CloakedShadow

Yes. It had wings. *Period.*


----------



## Gothmog

> _Originally posted by CloakedShadow _
> *Yes. It had wings. Period. *


Please Prove the above statement.


----------



## Popqueen62

*I don't...*

I don't thing Balrogs had wings, and if it says something about it, it was probably an analogy.


----------



## balrog

mmmm, i can't tell if i have wings through all this shadow and flame


----------



## Lantarion

> _Originally posted by balrog _
> *mmmm, i can't tell if i have wings through all this shadow and flame *


 ROTFL!!  Beautiful, beautiful..
Welcome to the forum, Balrog!


----------



## saulone

Ahhh...the Balrogs/Wings argument 

I will have to say that I ride the fence on this. I think there are substantial arguments on both sides - the passage where the Dwarves awoke the Balrog of Moria in Appendix A, Section III 

_"Thus (the dwarves) roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth."_ 

....so I am geussing he flies. 

To flip the coin however, in the "Wings of Darkness" comment also in the book - I actually see this as more of a comparison and not to be taken literally. 

_"His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings"_ 

The fact that Balrogs tend to have references to flight attached to them in both the Sil and LOTR - be it literal or not should also be addressed.

Personally I think Balrogs do have wings - however, they are not terribly functional in my mind. I think they are more for show, or for short leaps of flight - like a turkey or chicken (don't laugh ). 

Here's my vision of a Balrog...


----------



## Maedhros

At last the discussion of Balrogs: Winged or not.


> Personally I think Balrogs do have wings - however, they are not terribly functional in my mind.


Interesting to come to the conclusion that balrogs had wings with so little evidence. I would even say too simple, yet in saying that if they had wings that didn't function as intented (flying) is interesting.
Let's analyze this a little:
1. Balrogs had wings, (which there is no evidence in LOTR that they had any), and to go to the postion that the ones that they had don't function is intelligent and in a way convenient. Why, because you don't have to prove anything. In Lotr, which is canon
From Chapter 5: The Bridge of Khazad-dûm


> Something was coming up behind them. What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.
> It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it. Then with a rush it leaped across the fissure. The flames roared up to greet it, and wreathed about it; and a black smoke swirled in the air. Its streaming mane kindled, and blazed behind it. In its right hand was a blade like a stabbing tongue of fire; in its left it held a whip of many thongs.
> 'A Balrog! A Balrog is come! '


Look at the way Gandalf talked to the Fellowship in there:


> 'Over the bridge!' cried Gandalf, recalling his strength. `Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly!


Was Gandalf telling the fellowship to take out their wings and literaly fly (in the air) or to move out of there fast. . Wait, there is the possiblity that they had wings, but they didn't function. 
Later in the chapter:


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


I wonder why people don't quote this part entirely and only the part of the wings.
These quotes describe the balrog as a being of "shadow" and its "shadow" reached out like two vast wings, not that it had 2 wings.


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


It says that the darkness grew and so its "wings". These are of course not real wings.


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


It says that the shadow vanished, and while it did, there is no mention of its "wings of darkness". If he had any wings, why aren't they mentioned here?
And again, Gandalf tells the company to get out of there by using the word fly, which i don't think means to intend for them to go "flying" in the air.
From LOTR: The White Rider


> 'Yet it has a bottom, beyond light and knowledge,' said Gandalf. 'Thither I came at last, to the uttermost foundations of stone. He was with me still. His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake.


At this time, did he had "useless wings of slime" then?


> 'There upon Celebdil was a lonely window in the snow, and before it lay a narrow space, a dizzy eyrie above the mists of the world. The sun shone fiercely there, but all below was wrapped in cloud. Out he sprang, and even as I came behind, he burst into new flame. There was none to see, or perhaps in after ages songs would still be sung of the Battle of the Peak.' Suddenly Gandalf laughed. 'But what would they say in song? Those that looked up from afar thought that the mountain was crowned with storm. Thunder they heard, and lightning, they said, smote upon Celebdil, and leaped back broken into tongues of fire. Is not that enough? A great smoke rose about us, vapour and steam. Ice fell like rain. I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high place and broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin.


Any mention of wings anywhere? Even useless wings?
Let's look at other mentions of the word fly in LOTR
From LOTR: Helm's Deep


> 'Would that day was here and we might ride down upon them like a storm out of the mountains!' said Aragorn. 'It grieves me to fly before them.'
> 'We need not fly much further,' said Éomer. 'Not far ahead now lies Helm's Dike, an ancient trench and rampart scored across the coomb, two furlongs below Helm's Gate. There we can turn and give battle.'


If I remember correctly, Aragorn couldn't fly, could he?
From the Published Silmarillion: Of the Flight of the Noldor


> Far beneath the rained halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their Lord; and now swiftly they arose, and passing over Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.


Wings anywhere? Or even mention the word fly?
But to be fair, we have in Morgoth's Ring
From Morgoth's Ring: Later Quenta Silmarillion:


> Far beneath the halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, the Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their lord. Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.


We have here the mention of the phrase "winged speed" that means either that they moved very fast or that they had wings could fly, or simply that the wings that they had made them move more "rapidly".
There is another phrase with the word "winged":


> Therefore Ulmo taught them the craft of ship-building; and Ossë, submitting to Ulmo, brought them as his farewell gift the strong-winged swans.


Swans definitely had wings, so does that means that the balrogs had wings too?
I would conclude that based on the canonical evidence in the LOTR, you cannot say that Balrogs had wings or useless wings, because there is no proof.
If you decide to use the Later Quenta as the source of information, you have to remember that it's not canon, because it was not published by JRRT. You could say that they either had: wings or useless wings.

In conclusion, if you were to say that the Balrogs had wings or useless wings, the proof you have is in the Later Quenta, not in LOTR nor the Published Silmarillion.


----------



## Lantarion

Very detailed and interesting post, Maedhros. Thanks.
Although you would make a more powerful point without so much sarcasm, witty or not. 
Personally I agree with what Tolkien says about the Shadow around the Balrog enveloping it like wings.. But how can the Appendix-quote be explained? 
Also it seems slightly futile to draw any actual proof on the matter from the hoME, because as I understand everthing there is preliminary, unfinished and/or 'incorrect' to Tolkien himself, at least in Morgoth's Ring.


----------



## Maedhros

> Very detailed and interesting post, Maedhros. Thanks.


Thank you.


> Although you would make a more powerful point without so much sarcasm, witty or not.


If only you knew.


> But how can the Appendix-quote be explained?


Do you mean this phrase:


> It came to pass that in the middle of the Third Age Durin was again its king, being the sixth of that name. The power of Sauron, servant of Morgoth, was then again growing in the world, though the Shadow in the Forest that looked towards Moria was not yet known for what it was. All evil things were stirring. The Dwarves delved deep at that time, seeking beneath Barazinbar for mithril, the metal beyond price that was becoming yearly ever harder to win. Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth.


Flying as utilized in this phrase, with other examples that I had taken from LOTR does not imply that the Varaulakula "flew", flying is here a synonym of the word "move", although I would say move with great speed.


> Also it seems slightly futile to draw any actual proof on the matter from the hoME, because as I understand everthing there is preliminary, unfinished and/or 'incorrect' to Tolkien himself, at least in Morgoth's Ring.


Some of the Material is unfinished, but to say incorrect is another thing altogether, specially in Morgoth's Ring. Actually the Later Quenta is the last Version of the Quenta Silmarillion that JRRT wrote,(the manuscript LQ 4) , although he made some little alterations in the Shibboleth of Fëanor.


----------



## Beorn

Maed...to nearly all of your quotes, I can say, "And I suppose since it never mentions the fellowship having hands, we can assume they don't have any"

Consider this:


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



Now, keep that in mind and read this:


> His hair was like a bird's nest, it was so tangled.



So, the first quote refers to the *shadows* being like *wings*, not the wings being like shadows. The second means than the guy's hair was like a bird's nest, not a bird's nest was like hair.

That *moves fingers to say 'quote'* "evidence" being anulled, we continue:



> ...suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall...



So, without the previous *moves fingers to say 'quote'* "evidence" to support no wings, we are only left with concrete, undisputable evidence saying it did something with its wings.

...It was a horse, it was a mule, it was a Horse, it was a Mule, it was a HORSE!, it was MULE!...


----------



## Maedhros

> "And I suppose since it never mentions the fellowship having hands, we can assume they don't have any"


"It said so, yes; but it's tricksy. It doesn't say what it means. It won't say what it's got in its pocketses. It knows. It knows a way in, it must know a way out, yes.
I would say that if I can prove that the members of the Fellowship had hands, then:
From LOTR: A Long Expected Party


> Frodo saw him to the door. He gave a final wave of his hand, and walked off at a surprising pace; but Frodo thought the old wizard looked unusually bent, almost as if he was carrying a great weight. The evening was closing in, and his cloaked figure quickly vanished into the twilight. Frodo did not see him again for a long time.


Frodo had a hand. Pinch me I must be dreaming. Who would have thought that. Damn, it means that they did have hands.


> Gandalf laughed grimly. 'You see? Already you too, Frodo, cannot easily let it go, nor will to damage it. And I could not "make" you - except by force, which would break your mind. But as for breaking the Ring, force is useless. Even if you took it and struck it with a heavy sledge-hammer, it would make no dint in it. It cannot be unmade by your hands, or by mine.


Can't believe it, Gandalf has hands too. Wow.


> "evidence" to support no wings, we are only left with concrete, undisputable evidence saying it did something with its wings.


Yes, we have "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings". No real wings at all. 
Unfortunately, there is no specific mention in LOTR that it states that Balrogs had actual wings.


----------



## Beorn

*groans*



> Unfortunately, there is no specific mention in LOTR that it states that Balrogs had actual wings.



It doesn't actually say, "Gandalf had Hands." and somewhere "Frodo had hands." However, it does say they used their hands, implying they had did have hands.



> ...its wings were spread from wall to wall...


The above quote says that the wings had been spread from wall to wall, *implying it had did have wings.*


----------



## Maedhros

> The above quote says that the wings had been spread from wall to wall, implying it had did have wings.


Nope.


> The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.


It was the shadow that reached like two vast wings, not that he had wings per se.


----------



## Lantarion

*Argh..*

Yes yes, you are correct: but there is the other quote which contradicts this hypothesis ("His wings reaches from wall to wall"..), owing to which we are having this debate at all! 
So how do you explain this other quote, ie. "His wings..." ? 

And as for the Appendix-quote, the term "flying" used would seem to lean towards the definition of "fleeing", as Gandalf means when he tell sthe Fellowship to 'fly'. Why would Balrogs flee from Thangorodrim? 



> _Last posted by Maedhros_
> the *Varaulakula*


LOL!


----------



## Maedhros

> So how do you explain this other quote, ie. "His wings..." ?


Can you put the complete quote so that I can answer you?


> Why would Balrogs flee from Thangorodrim?


To avoid being destroyed in the War of Wrath.
From the Fall of Gondolin:


> The idea that Morgoth disposed of a 'host' of Balrogs endured long, but in a late note my father said that only very few ever existed -- 'at most seven'.


There were not many to begin with.


----------



## Cian

Same Appendix Section III (not long after the Balrog "flying" from Thangorodrim quote): Azog saw that all his host in the valley was in a rout, and those that could escape from the Dwarves: _"... were flying south, shrieking as they ran."_ 

So generally flying can easily mean 'fleeing' which I think well fits the Balrog quote too. A Tolkien description of a Balrog: _"... their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named ..."_ ~JRRT

No wings there, "vast" or otherwise, but darkness/shadow certainly ~ and Tolkien has no problem describing a reaching shadow as wings: _"Over the land there lies a long shadow, westward reaching wings of darkness."_ ~JRRT, ROTK

I say _Unlight_


----------



## Lantarion

> _Last posted by Maedhros_
> Can you put the complete quote so that I can answer you?


I did in my last post, a few lines before: "His wings reached from wall to wall."
Well?


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> *I did in my last post, a few lines before: "His wings reached from wall to wall."
> Well? *



Well that's not the exact quote  but one point is it's out of context; and in any event, there is nothing to say that a shadow cannot be called 'wings' while still being a shadow (especially if it does something winglike).

Here's more wings: _"... and ever one of the accursed ships hath black wings."_ (~JRRT) Earlier the 'sails' of these ships had been described as "like wings".

Eagles with bird 'wings'?

_"And some of the eagles bore lightning beneath their wings, and thunder echoed between sea and cloud."_ ~JRRT

In context they are clouds though.


----------



## Maedhros

> Well?


I have to admit that both of you, Lantarion and Beorn are consistent, but can you give any evidence that they had wings.
Preferably complete quotes and not parts of it.


----------



## Beorn

Saying an action was taken with something means that something must exist, so if it refers to that thing, that thing must exist:



> The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and _*the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings*_. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils. But Gandalf stood firm.
> `You cannot pass,' he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. `I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.'
> The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and _*its wings were spread from wall to wall;*_ but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: gray and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm


So, the first _*styled*_ part refers to the shadow, therefore proving only that the shadow exists, not that the wings do not exist.
The second _*styled*_ part refers to the wings, proving they do exist.

Is that quote complete enough for you Maed, or would you like me to put the whole book in there?


----------



## Maedhros

> So, the first styled part refers to the shadow, therefore proving only that the shadow exists, not that the wings do not exist.
> The second styled part refers to the wings, proving they do exist.


Unfortunately, the second reference to the wings, actually "refers" to the first part, which "refers" to the shadow.


> Is that quote complete enough for you Maed, or would you like me to put the whole book in there?


The whole chapter would suffice.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Beorn _
> *So, the first styled part refers to the shadow, therefore proving only that the shadow exists, not that the wings do not exist. The second styled part refers to the wings, proving they do exist.*



The second sentence does not "prove" a Balrog had wings (beyond temporary shadow-wings). Apply what you say here to the following:

_"... for the sea-men spread great cloths like wings to catch the airs,"_ JRRT

"Like wings", then:

_"... and ever one of the accursed ships hath black wings."_

and:
_The foul wings of the sea-men have not ..."_

Would you also argue that the second two references do not both refer to the sails?


----------



## Lantarion

> _Originally posted by Cian_
> *"... and ever one of the accursed ships hath black wings."*


This quote is completely different from the Balrog-quote (politely provided by Beorn), where it is perfectly feasable for the Balrog, at the time in the book an "unknown" monstrous being, to have material wings; whereas it is completely ridiculous for a ship to have such (let's call them "bird-like") wings, because they travel by water, not air.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> *This quote is completely different from the Balrog-quote ...*



Not so  a comparison to wings is made (_like_), followed by wings itself (twice).



> * ... where it is perfectly feasable for the Balrog, at the time in the book an "unknown" monstrous being, to have material wings; whereas it is completely ridiculous for a ship to have such ... *



So the reading is obvious from the sail/wings example, but is not so obvious in the Balrog example as it's feasable that a Balrog might have wings (correct me if you mean something substantially different). But that the example I posted is easily agreed upon is exactly why I posted it 

Beorn claimed that the "second styled part" of the Balrog quote "proves" that wings exist. But as it is, the word wings can easily refer to the shadow, as it also refers to the sails.

The shadow and the sails exist. Both are 'wings' in the sense that they are winglike in some way. That's a perfectly reasonable reading of the text IMO, especially in context.

I prefer "shadow" or _Unlight,_ and see no real reason, as yet, why these "wings" need be thought of as more than vast, temporary "reachings".


----------



## Lantarion

Ah, well alright. I can't say no to you. 
And I agree anyway, that the Balrog is an Unlight-essense without actual material wings. So there.


----------



## Cian

> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> *Ah, well alright. I can't say no to you.
> And I agree anyway, that the Balrog is an Unlight-essense without actual material wings. So there. *



LOL 

Huzzah for _Unlight!_


----------



## tom_bombadil

Barlogs have wings how else could it have fell with gandalf


----------



## Lantarion

What do you mean, exactly? Couldn't he have fallen if he had not had material wings (which he didn't)? 
And anyway, I think any question you might have are probably answered somewhere else in this thread.


----------



## Cian

He could not have not fallen if he didn't not have non-material wings ... I think.


----------



## Beorn

...And, Cian......I suppose you think the Balrog has sails? 



> _Originally posted by Cian _
> *Beorn claimed that the "second styled part" of the Balrog quote "proves" that wings exist. But as it is, the word wings can easily refer to the shadow, as it also refers to the sails.*



But, the Balrog quote refers to the shadow and the Balrog as two seperate entities. The ship quote refers to the sails and them metaphorically as wings, as one single entity. No where in the Balrog quote is a simile or metaphor used to connect 'Shadow' and 'Wings.'

Balrog. Shadow



> The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils. But Gandalf stood firm.
> `You cannot pass,' he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. `I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.'
> The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: gray and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm



*wonders if post is semi-coherent*


----------



## Cian

> *But, the Balrog quote refers to the shadow and the Balrog as two seperate entities. The ship quote refers to the sails and them metaphorically as wings, as one single entity. No where in the Balrog quote is a simile or metaphor used to connect 'Shadow' and 'Wings.'*




... shadow reached out _like_ wings. (Balrog quote)

... spread great cloths _like_ wings (sail quote)

The shadow is like wings in some way, but still shadow ... the cloths are like wings in some way, but still cloths (sails). Both are followed up by "wings" which can easily refer back to the thing compared.


----------



## Nefmariel

Well Vir says in the book that they do and in the movie it looks to me like they do so I say and voted that Balrogs have Wings


----------



## Nefmariel

oops I ment Cir! sorry I was typin with one hand.


----------



## Isenho

in the book, Tolkien wrote they had wings!

in the movie you can SEE the wings!

John Howe and Ted Nasmith gave em wings!


----------



## Beorn

> _Originally posted by Nefmariel _
> *Well Vir says in the book that they do and in the movie it looks to me like they do so I say and voted that Balrogs have Wings *



WELL, when you consider the fact that the movie has a good deal made up and changed, you can't trust PJ's [sarcastic quotes with finger movements]interpretation[/sarcastic quotes with finger movements] for anything. However, I do feel they have wings...As Cian (Cian, please e-mail me at [email protected], or PM me, *please*) can certainly attest to.


----------



## Rúmil

wouldn't it be good if there were [sacrastic quoting gesture] smileys available?


----------



## *Lady Aragorn*

why wouldn't they have wings? you could see them clearly in TT, and if you look carefully, you can see them in FotR.


----------



## Lantarion

*OMG!*

Please read the entirety of the thread before jumping to conclusions..
And the movies offer absolutely no evidense to back up the argument that the Balrog actually had material wings. Give me a direct, uncontradicted quote from any of Tolkien's books, then I can take you seriously.


----------



## faila

*Balrogs and their wings*

Did balrogs have wings or not? I believe they did. Here is why

"The balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew its self up to a great heiht, and its wings were spread from wall to wall"

I believe that is quite straight forward.So opinions thoughts? Are their two breeds of balogs one with wings and others without?


----------



## Celebthôl

please please PLEASE dont start this debate there is no real answer and it only leads to arguements and strife, the answer is known only to Mr Tolkien (if him)!
not once does it state that Balrogs have wings, not 100% for cretain, it is the most debated thing ever to do with Mr Tolkiens works save Mr Bombadil!


----------



## faila

> _Originally posted by Celebthôl _
> *please please PLEASE dont start this debate there is no real answer and it only leads to arguements and strife, the answer is known only to Mr Tolkien (if him)!
> not once does it state that Balrogs have wings, not 100% for cretain, it is the most dedated thing ever to do with Mr Tolkiens works save Mr Bombadil! *


 Im actually ust trying to fiure out the logic behind the no wing theoryfor it quite plainly says they had wings in the quote gave.


----------



## Heathertoes

To save me having to trawl around looking for answers, can someone just BRIEFLY set out the 'no wing' case. How can there be one? The man himself said they had wings.


----------



## Celebthôl

there are quotes, i cant be naffed to find em now but they go against the wings thing and generally the theroy of a being with massive wings in a cramped mine is weird and wouldnt work etc, but i personally believe they did have wings!


----------



## FoolOfATook

> it is the most dedated thing ever to do with Mr Tolkiens works save Mr Bombadil!



I think the real question is whether or not Bombadil had wings.


----------



## Niniel

I think the whole idea of Balrogs not having wings was created by people who think that Balrogs consisted of only 'shadow and flame'. In that case, they would have no corporeal bodies but be immaterial. Then it would also be weird for them to have wings, since of they have no body they wouldn't need wings to go anywhere. But since JRRT himself said they had wings, I believe Balrogs are corporeal beings. The shadow is the darkness that is inside them, and the flame the fire that surrounds them, but they do have a body. And wings.


----------



## Baranlas

i thought the main arguement was wether they could use there wings, but it seems i was wrong


----------



## Rúmil

http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/b/balrogs.html

That's about the most complete presentation you'll ever find of both sides of the debate.

I do think they have wings, by the way


----------



## Isenho

- JRR Tolkien said they had wings

- The movie showed them having wings

- John Howe, Ted Nasmith, and Alan Lee painted Balrogs with wings

SO yes Balrogs had wings!


----------



## Arvedui

And here is another site that gives you a lot more insight:

Do Balrog's have wings? 

That is written by people from this Forum.


----------



## Ol'gaffer

ah, but a balrog with wings just makes things just a little more dramatical.


----------



## Nardil

Tolkien makes it pretty clear that they do, in fact, have wings. The question that remains is what do these wings consist of? Like the rest of the Balrog, these wings are of shadow and flame.


----------



## Beorn

Wings or No?


----------



## Rúmil

Beorn, PLEASE! not that one again!


----------



## goldmare

GROAN! Oh jeez, not again. Hasn't this already been argued? Another thing a believer in no wings might say is that why did the Balrog fall from the Bridge of Kazad-dum if he had wings, but please do not start discussing this, I just though it should be added. One thing, though- when or where did Tolkien ever say that Balrogs have wings? I have never heard that and it would seriously help me in this argument I am having with a friend of mine. Could someone please tell me where you found this out?


----------



## faila

th bridge of kazadumthat last page or so

"and its wings spread from wall to wall"
(not exact quote)


----------



## Rúmil

Please, faila at least assume we know the relevant quotations  That passage is possibly the most quoted passage of Tolkien ever: I'm pretty sure goldmare has read the line. The problem is, that line may refer not to actual wings, but to the comparant of a metaphor. We'll never know for sure, though I myself stand in the 'wings' party. (I used to be a no-wings but grew out of it)


----------



## Tuor

I am a proponent of the "no-wings" view. this is primarily based on the fact that while they were standing parallel to a long chasm on the bridge, the Balrog spread it's wings "from wall to wall", a n impossibility in the space, unless they were hypothetical wings. earlier, too, it says that "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings". also, it went up the secret way out of Moria. if this was about the same size as that in the hobbit, which i suspect, it could not have gone with wings. did you guys notice that in the movies it had shadows between the stiff parts of its wings instead of membrane or leathery skin? it also had a tail. typical fantasy demon, but i think somewhat dissimilar from tolkien's concept. speaking of fantasy, warcraft III has really cool demons. you should all see it.


----------



## goldmare

What my question really referred to was did Tolkien ever say in a place other than the books whether or not balrogs have wings? The way someone said it, I had assumed they meant that he had said it in an interview or a letter or something, although now that I go back and look at it, they probably meant in the books. I wish he had said it more plainly, and he's probably turning in his grave to think that people are discussing such an irrelevent and pointless topic in connection to him.

By the way, I am on the fence about this issue. I have come to the timid conclusion that they did have wings, but the wings were made of shadow, probably for effect. And people, please do not refer to the movie when discussing this topic, because Tolkien did not help make the movie and it is therefore not a very reliable source.


----------



## Barakul

Balrogs had wing! well at least I think they did. Well maybe it was my imagination. Or...well...ok...I'll shut up now. PEACE OUT YALL!


----------



## faila

> _Originally posted by goldmare _
> *What my question really referred to was did Tolkien ever say in a place other than the books whether or not balrogs have wings? The way someone said it, I had assumed they meant that he had said it in an interview or a letter or something, although now that I go back and look at it, they probably meant in the books. I wish he had said it more plainly, and he's probably turning in his grave to think that people are discussing such an irrelevent and pointless topic in connection to him.
> *


 I think he would actually be happy. I believe he purposely left points like the balrogs wings or tombombadil, for people to argue about. And yea we did men in the books that last couple pages of the bridge of kazadum


----------



## redline2200

I don't understand why this is a thread. When Tolkien says it had wings then THEY HAD WINGS! He says its wings spread from wall to wall; what more evidence is needed? How else could Tolkien have said they had wings than by specifically pointing out that Durin's bane had wings?


----------



## Rúmil

Garr! I don't like quoting myself, but here goes:


> Please, faila at least assume we know the relevant quotations That passage is possibly the most quoted passage of Tolkien ever: I'm pretty sure goldmare has read the line. *The problem is, that line may refer not to actual wings, but to the comparant of a metaphor*


----------



## Ithrynluin

I'm pleased to see that 72% of people think that Balrogs had wings.


----------



## Gothmog

May I ask just what it is that pleases you about 72% getting it completly wrong??   

Ok another look at this subject. I have posted this on another site also.

We all know that Tolkien could describe things in minute detail and with his words he could conjure up pictures so that we could see exactly what he wanted us to see. With this in mind let us look at the question 'Do Balrogs have Wings'.

What is it that JRRT wanted us to see when we looked at the Balrog in Moria. I am not going to bother This time with the much used quotes of 'Like Wings' and 'Wings Spread' they have already been talked to death and no longer have any meaning. Let us instead look a little earlier in the chapter.
The first sight of the Balrog.


> But it was not the trolls that had filled the Elf with terror. The ranks of the orcs had opened, and they crowded away, as if they themselves were afraid. Something was coming up behind them. *What it was could not be seen*: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.


 So we cannot see what it is that is coming towards the company. It was a darkness like a great shadow and in this shadow was a form of 'Man-Shape Maybe'. Unless any wings were folded very tightly it is difficult for me to imagine how such a poorly viewed object could be thought to be even maybe of 'Man-Shape'. If winged, Such a dark form within a shadow would have surely looked more like some great beast.
This is followed by.


> It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it. Then with a rush it leaped across the fissure. The flames roared up to greet it, and wreathed about it; and a black smoke swirled in the air. Its streaming mane kindled, and blazed behind it. In its right hand was a blade like a stabbing tongue of fire; in its left it held a whip of many thongs.


 It seems that this shows at least that it cannot fly. Why else would it need to rush and leap across the fissure?


> The dark figure streaming with fire raced towards them.


 This seems to me, not to go with the idea of a winged creature.

Although Each of these quotes on their own mean very little, taken as a whole they brought to my mind a creature that could travel swiftly but had not wings of phyical form but only a shadow surrounding it that it could extend at will.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater;





> So we cannot see what it is that is coming towards the company. It was a darkness like a great shadow and in this shadow was a form of 'Man-Shape Maybe'. Unless any wings were folded very tightly it is difficult for me to imagine how such a poorly viewed object could be thought to be even maybe of 'Man-Shape'. If winged, Such a dark form within a shadow would have surely looked more like some great beast.



The thing in the "shadow" is the Balrog, I think we agree on that. But I don't understand why you can't see "shadow" as being its wings? Great shadow = great wings.



> Then with a rush it leaped across the fissure.





> It seems that this shows at least that it cannot fly. Why else would it need to rush and leap across the fissure?



The fact that it has wings, doesn't mean it has to fly _all the time_! Do birds fly all the time?  I presume the Balrog didn't feel the need to fly over a little fissure, or he was saving his strength for his confrontation with Gandalf (I assume that flying is an exhausting exercise).



> May I ask just what it is that pleases you about 72% getting it completly wrong??


----------



## Rúmil

> The fact that it has wings, doesn't mean it has to fly all the time! Do birds fly all the time? I presume the Balrog didn't feel the need to fly over a little fissure, or he was saving his strength for his confrontation with Gandalf (I assume that flying is an exhausting exercise).


 Good point, but what about the great fall? it would have been useful to fly then..


----------



## Confusticated

> _Originally posted by Rúmil _
> *Good point, but what about the great fall? it would have been useful to fly then.. *


Maybe not if he/she feared that Gandalf would get away.


----------



## Gothmog

> The thing in the "shadow" is the Balrog, I think we agree on that. But I don't understand why you can't see "shadow" as being its wings? Great shadow = great wings.


 Yes the Balrog was indeed *In* the "shadow". Wings are not mentioned and yet at this point if there were any they would be the *only* part of the Balrog that could be identified yet nothing is said.


> The fact that it has wings, doesn't mean it has to fly all the time! Do birds fly all the time? I presume the Balrog didn't feel the need to fly over a little fissure, or he was saving his strength for his confrontation with Gandalf (I assume that flying is an exhausting exercise).


 True, flying would be exhausting and so would rushing and leaping. On the other hand, a creature with wings would no doubt find that using said wings to assist by gliding would in fact be far easier in getting over a fissure than holding them shut and doing a long-jump.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by Rúmil _
> *Good point, but what about the great fall? it would have been useful to fly then.. *



It sure would! Poor Balrog! 

But then again, you could say "Gandalf could have just climbed up from that ledge instead of foolishly letting himself drop in."

I'm sure both of their staminas (or however you like to call that) was drained from their encounter. Gandalf was too weakened to climb up, and the Fiery Man was too exhausted to fly.



> _Originally posted by Gothmog _
> *Yes the Balrog was indeed In the "shadow". Wings are not mentioned and yet at this point if there were any they would be the only part of the Balrog that could be identified yet nothing is said. *



I was thinking more along the lines of : The Balrog was standing IN the shadow...._of his own wings_.


----------



## Gothmog

> I was thinking more along the lines of : The Balrog was standing IN the shadow....of his own wings.


 Which would mean that the Wings would be the most obvious part of the Balrog and the first to be noticed. Yet they are not mentioned at all until after the Shadow is compared to "wings".


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by Gothmog _
> *Which would mean that the Wings would be the most obvious part of the Balrog and the first to be noticed. Yet they are not mentioned at all until after the Shadow is compared to "wings". *



Sure they are the most obvious part of the Balrog, but still only a _shadow_, not recognizable to be wings. Maybe Tolkien (as a narrator) put himself in the shoes of one of the Fellowship, and none of them would have perceived the shadow as wings, they would have seen only a "humanoid" figure standing in a shadow. 

Why SHOULD they be mentioned anyway? Why didn't Tolkien 
_mention_ that Tom Bombadil is a Vala/Maia/Nature spirit/whatever? Just another one of those little contradictions and mysteries that the books are so full of. Anyway, that's my take on it.


----------



## Gothmog

> _Originally posted by ithrynluin _
> *Sure they are the most obvious part of the Balrog, but still only a shadow, not recognizable to be wings. Maybe Tolkien (as a narrator) put himself in the shoes of one of the Fellowship, and none of them would have perceived the shadow as wings, they would have seen only a "humanoid" figure standing in a shadow.
> 
> Why SHOULD they be mentioned anyway? Why didn't Tolkien
> mention that Tom Bombadil is a Vala/Maia/Nature spirit/whatever? Just another one of those little contradictions and mysteries that the books are so full of. Anyway, that's my take on it. *


 It seems to me that as the objects causing the shadow they would have looked more like wings that the object would have looked "Man-like". As for Why should they *mentioned* I have already covered that. Tolkien did not want to mention too much. He wanted to leave it for us to decide.

And you have still not covered the point about crossing the Fissure. Tolkien stated that the Balrog rushed and *Leaped* across. Had it been standing in the shadow of wings then it would have been more likely that it would have kept its wings spread and "Glided" across. And Tolkien would have writen it that way.


----------



## Ol'gaffer

Well, I think that the Balrog had wings. It made it look more dramatic.

But what I really want to know is how did gandalf manage to hurt it since it was nothing more than flame and shadow?


----------



## Rúmil

elvish and Númenorean swords were more than just ordinary swords: they were 'magic' swords that could undo the spell that bound the fëa of evil crreatures to their hröa:


> So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, *breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will*.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by Gothmog _
> *It seems to me that as the objects causing the shadow they would have looked more like wings that the object would have looked "Man-like". As for Why should they mentioned I have already covered that. Tolkien did not want to mention too much. He wanted to leave it for us to decide.*



That's where we disagree basically. Maybe if each of us illustrated what we mean it would be easier to understand. But since my artistic skills are close to zero, no can do. We'll have to agree that there is a "fissure" between our opinions.



> _Originally posted by Gothmog _
> *And you have still not covered the point about crossing the Fissure. Tolkien stated that the Balrog rushed and Leaped across. Had it been standing in the shadow of wings then it would have been more likely that it would have kept its wings spread and "Glided" across. And Tolkien would have writen it that way. *



I have not covered it because your explanation makes more sense than mine. Still my belief that they HAD wings holds firmly. I'm glad I had this little debate with you though.


----------



## Gothmog

> _Originally posted by ithrynluin _
> *That's where we disagree basically. Maybe if each of us illustrated what we mean it would be easier to understand. But since my artistic skills are close to zero, no can do. We'll have to agree that there is a "fissure" between our opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> I have not covered it because your explanation makes more sense than mine. Still my belief that they HAD wings holds firmly. I'm glad I had this little debate with you though. *


I could do no better at illustrating(and I have tried). It is all about how each sees it. So we are left with an agreement to disagree, I still see them wingless This has been one of the better discussions I have had over this topic and I thank you.


----------



## Ithrynluin

So I'm right, eh? BWAHAHAHAHA... Take that Gothmog!


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Yes.
Balrogs had wings.
The End.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by Wonko The Sane _
> *Yes.
> Balrogs had wings.
> The End. *



Wonx, thank you for supporting my view. Short and to the point.


----------



## Lantarion

OMG. Please read the already existing posts before defiantly stating an unsupported opinion.


----------



## Gothmog

> _Originally posted by Wonko The Sane _
> *Yes.
> Balrogs had wings.
> The End. *



Please supply supporting *Proof* for this statement.

ps. Good luck in finding *Any*


----------



## Wonko The Sane

To Lantarion and Gothmog.

That's just what I think...not because there is any evidence for or against it, but because that's what I think.

The first post in this thread said



> Did Balrogs have Wings? What do you think, rather than what you evidence thinks....I don't want people to argue, just whether they have wings...



It didn't ask for evidence. Just my opinion.

So don't jump on my case or get snippy.

I gave my opinion like Beorn asked.

Be nicer next time.


----------



## Lantarion

Well then, you should have said that it was just your opinion! 
But sorry if I snapped..


----------



## Ol'gaffer

He did say that it was his opinion. So don't snap. Besides, balrog was just the random encouter no.1433 so it really doesn't matter if he had wings or no. And how do we know that it was a he? why not a she?


----------



## Gothmog

> Yes.
> Balrogs had wings.
> The End.



Wonko, Your use of 'The End' made it look that you were posting this as an unarguable fact rather than your opinion. And I am the Lord of the Balrogs of Morgoth, I *Was* being nice (for a Demon)


----------



## Wonko The Sane

> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> *Well then, you should have said that it was just your opinion!
> But sorry if I snapped..  *



I thought that something being my opinion was implicit in the fact that I said it...

I mean...normally people don't say things that they don't agree with...but maybe I should have been more clear.

If I ever decide to later post other's opinions and post them and argue for things I don't personally believe I'll let you know.

And me saying The End is just a silly thing I say.
I say it a lot.

You probably haven't seen many of my posts since you like to be serious...so I'll forgive you the misunderstanding.


----------



## Morgoth

I've never imagined Balrogs having wings. I think that myself and Peter Jackson had an identical image in our heads, as that is how i've always imagined Balrogs to look.


----------



## Elendil3119

I'm of the opinion that Balrogs had wings but couldn't really use them. But of course, I'm probably wrong. Wish we could ask Tolkien!


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by Elendil3119 _
> *I'm of the opinion that Balrogs had wings but couldn't really use them. But of course, I'm probably wrong. Wish we could ask Tolkien! *



What exactly would be the purpose of having wings but not being able to use them? They would only get in the way a lot.


----------



## Elendil3119

You're right. Its really pretty hard to tell just from the books, and I think we've all been slightly indoctrinated by PJ's portrayal in FotR. I'm probably one of the worst cases, cause I couldn't have been happier with PJ's Balrog! 

--Elendil3119--


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by Elendil3119 _
> *You're right. Its really pretty hard to tell just from the books, and I think we've all been slightly indoctrinated by PJ's portrayal in FotR. I'm probably one of the worst cases, cause I couldn't have been happier with PJ's Balrog!
> 
> --Elendil3119-- *



I liked PJ's Balrog a lot too, despite the fact that it was wingless.


----------



## Elendil3119

What in the world do you mean by that? I'm positive PJ's balrog had wings! You wouldn't be trying to start an argument, would you?


----------



## Theoden_king

I always thought that the balrog had wings but as they were made of shadow it couldn't use them to fly


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Correction:

I've watched TT in the past week and Snaga and I had a lengthy in-theatre discussion about the fact that PJ's Balrog DID in fact have wings.
They're rather like bat wings and it does appear that he may have been able to use them..perhaps in the same way a chicken does?
A chicken can flutter or use its wings to lift it to a perch but it can't fly for any distance.
An ostrich and a penguin are also flightless birds so having wings but not being able to fly is possible.
Also in some cases amongst insects they have vestigial wings (much like the vestigial tail that humans have while in the womb) that are completely useless.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by Wonko The Sane _
> *Correction:
> 
> I've watched TT in the past week and Snaga and I had a lengthy in-theatre discussion about the fact that PJ's Balrog DID in fact have wings. *



That is the worst option imaginable. A balrog having "chicken" wings just for decoration (and for making it look totally ridiculous)?
I'd rather have a wingless Balrog then, thank you very much. 

Why would Balrogs, who are Maiar, assume a shape with some useless chicken wings? Either wings or no wings, no option in between.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Don't look at the wings as useless becasue:

a) It's only your opinion that the wings make them look stupid. Maybe they liked them! 

and b) Chicken's wings are NOT useless!! Balrogs don't NEED to fly for long distances and probably aren't built for it anyway. But having wings that could carry them short distances, say in battle for example, might have been QUITE useful!


----------



## Jesse

Definately! Balrogs had wings, Gandalf stabbed his sword into one of them. They could fly.


----------



## Celebithil

My immediate thought is yes they did have wings. However (and I admit I didn't read the whole thread so if this has been asked before please tell me to shut up) could it be possible that there are Balrogs with wings and Balrogs without as there are with dragons. Just a though.


----------



## Gandalf White

> _Originally posted by Jesse _
> *Definately! Balrogs had wings, Gandalf stabbed his sworfd into one of them. They could fly. *


 I think if the Balrog could use it's wings it would've flown after crashing through the bridge. 
Personally, the very first time I read LotR I imagined the Balrog with wings, but worn like a cape and not used for flying. I've never changed my opinion since.


----------



## Elendil3119

Yay! There's someone who agrees with me! I also think the balrog had wings, but could not use them.


----------



## Tuilin

I think Balrogs have wings too...
I have always pictured them with wings.
The Moria-balrog flew to Moria, didnt it?


----------



## Melko Belcha

Can someone tell me where there is a physical description of the wings?

You can't because there never is one. Let's see the pro-wing people claim that "and its wings were spread from wall to wall" as proof that they are physical wings, but is not!

"and its wings were spread from wall to wall" ok so where is the description of the wings? Right before. "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings"
So the decription of the wings is the shadow that surronds the Balrog.

What is shadow? Tolkien's shadow isn't your normal shadow cast when light is being blocked, the Balrogs shadow isn't just a lack of light, but a region of darkness that they carry around with them. So the shadow is something the Balrog can control just as Sauron controls the "wings of shadow" released by Mount Doom.

I have heard people say that if Tolkien had meant shadow like wings then he would have wrote " and the shadow like wings were spread from wall to wall". Why? He has already described the wings "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings". How do you see that the shadow becomes physical wings within the passage. Tolkien was a presicon writer and if he had meant phsyical wings he would have wrote in in the description of the Balrog. 
"What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape, maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it."
Where is there any mention of phsyical wings? 

People also say that Balrogs can fly because of a few quotes, "flying from Thangorodrim", and "and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum". Well if the first is to be taken literaly then so does this passage, "Gandalf came flying down the steps and fell to the ground in the midst of the Company". So if the Balrog can fly then so can Gandalf! Winged speed is used by many writes to discribe fast travel, but usually not to creatures that have wings, you wouldn't describe a bird flying at winged speed, of course it's moving at winged speed.

Any pro wing argument you have I can find a way to counter it, but in truth the question can never be answered.


----------



## JeffF.

*As has been said many times before on this very thread...*

...if the Balrog could use its wings then it would not have fallen into the chasm when Gandalf destroyed the bridge.


----------



## Ithrynluin

*And as has also been said before...*

The Balrog could have been exhausted from the confrontation with Gandalf. The same way that Gandalf could have been exhausted from it and just let go of the bridge.


----------



## Beleg

Cor! People don't get bored by this topic! J.K. Anyway, i dont think the Balrog had wings, and the Moria Balrog could have found numerous Different ways to be transported to Moria.


----------



## Ol'gaffer

Why do you think there were nine nazgul with their flying beasts?


----------



## Jesse

Weren't those beasts dragons? I thought they looked like dragons??


----------



## christopher

I think the Balrog could have had wings, but perhaps they were no longer used, like a chicken, or even better, like an ostrich. However, this would indicate some sort of evolution, and I do not know whether the Balrog's were around long enough to be part of some sort of change, and indeed if they could have offspring- an essential thing for evolution.
Of course, the Balrog could have had wings, but since he had been trapped under the mountain for so long, was a bit out of practise, or had lost the knowledge how to use them.
If one looks at a swan or a duck, or indeed many other birds, one sees that they need a horizontal movement in order to take off, and since the Balrog was fall down, he could not produce the movement to take off. Or perhaps the chasm was to narrow for the Balrog to spread its wings.


----------



## BlackCaptain

> _Originally posted by Jesse _
> *Weren't those beasts dragons? I thought they looked like dragons?? *



No... They were never given names, and they sure arent Dragons. All the Dragons in Middle Earth were after Smaug died. If there were any left they were the Cold-Drakes far far north.

Melo Balcha provided some very good quotes before this, saying that Balrogs FLEW from Thangongdorim (sp?). I say yes, they do have wings.


----------



## Melko Belcha

The shadow stretched out like two vast wings that spread from wall to wall.

That is what you get when you put the two passages together and there is no hint of physical wings. 

Morgulking you should reread my post because I proved that the passage about the Balrog flying from Thangorodrim is no proof to Balrogs having wings. Tolkien uses fly and flew many times in his writing. If you take that one sentance seriously then apparently the Rohirrim fly, Gandalf flys, entire armies could fly.

Just give me one quote that shows physical wings and then I will accept that they have wings, but I have studied this for 10 years and trust me you will not find one.


----------



## Gandalf White

That's what makes this matter so interesting, the fact that two people can hold entirely different opinions, and back them up as well. 


> ...and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.


 and


> 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...


 One party can say that these refer to the same thing, wings as shadows, whereas the other group can say the first passage describes the shadow, and the next talks of actual, physical wings. I am with the second party.



> and its wings were spread from wall to wall" ok so where is the description of the wings? Right before. "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings" So the decription of the wings is the shadow that surronds the Balrog.


 There is no description given of the wings, nor does their need to be! The simple statement is enough. And you have your reasoning backwards. The description of the wings is the shadow that surrounds the Balrog, you say. Actually, the description of the shadow was the likening of it to wings.


----------



## Melko Belcha

Ever since The Book of Lost Tales the Balrogs have been refered to as being either wrapped in darkness or shadow. Tolkien has described the Balrogs many of times throughout the writing of The Silmarillion and in many letters he wrote and they are always described with shadows or darkness surronding them.
The only referance to wings is those two lines out of over 50 years of writings.
I know Tolkien's image of Balrogs changed over time, but the shadow was there from the begining.
Plus it says shadow _like_ two vast wings, not wings _like_ shadow.

In the description it plainly states shadow.


> "What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape, maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it."


How anybody can see wings in that passage is beyond me.


----------



## olorin the maia

but in the passage just a few sentences later is stated:



> ...and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall;



The Author does this numerous times through out his works, as I have said elsewhere. Things are left deliberately unclear and indistinct. Part of his story-telling. But I would say the monster had wings. _And_ wrapped itself in shadow.


----------



## Tuilin

The balrog that glorfindel slew fell down and thats why it died(well...)right?
So it cant have had useable wings.


----------



## Melko Belcha

> ...and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.



Why do people look this line over? And why do people ignore the word like? Lets see what the dictionary says.


> like = having the same characteristics; similar; equal. 1 similar to 2 similarity to /to sing like a bird/ 3 characteristic of /not like her to cry/ 4 in the mood for /to feel like sleeping/ 5 indicative of /it looks like rain/ 6 as for example/ fruit, like pears and plums.



Also it say 'the shadow' not 'a shadow'. Big differance.


----------



## BlackCaptain

Since there is obviously no proof of Balrogs having wings, I agree with the very convincing Melo Belcha.


----------



## olorin the maia

so what spread out from wall to wall in Moria? Pantaloons?

Fifty years of writings, forsooth! One declarative phrase seems to be enough, in this case:



> ...and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall;



that's not to say the Balrog's wings were used for flight, nor that every Balrog had wings.


----------



## Melko Belcha

I could say that I spread my arms out like two vast wings, and then my wings spread from wall to wall, but that dosen't mean I have wings.

What spread from wall to wall was the shadow, the cloak of darkness. 

The shadow was not cast by wings the Balrog was wrapped in it. It was part of his being.


----------



## BlackCaptain

I agree... What's so hard to understand about it?


----------



## olorin the maia

True enough. Certainly, the darkness/shadow was part of the being of the Balrog.
But your example 



> I could say that I spread my arms out like two vast wings, and then my wings spread from wall to wall, but that dosen't mean I have wings.




is not what was written, nor, I daresay, is it the intent of the Author. In a theme-writing class, Melkor, you'd be hard-pressed to defend jumping from simile to metaphor in that manner. 

The figure of speech you cite comparing shadow to wings is an example of simile, and a good one, for the time and place it is used. JRRT used many in his writings.

The phrase I quote is not; it is very literal, and really, beyond linguistic interpretation.
So, IMO, the beastie had wings. What they were made of is open to (too much) debate.

And no offense, but I think this dead horse has been beaten enough?


----------



## Melko Belcha

The Treason of Isengard - The Bridge


> In B it is said only that the Balrog 'stood facing him': in C 'the Balrog halted facing him, and the shadow about him reached out like great wings'. Immediately afterwards, where in FR the Balrog 'drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread wall to wall'; neither B nor C has the words ' to a great height' nor speaks of the 'wings'.


If Tolkien never entered the line 'and its wings were spread wall to wall' would you still think it had wings?

I will not lie I suck at English, but to me the shadow is as much a part of the Balrog as my arms are to me.

I do agree that this debate can not be solved, but there are people on here that really put up some good points, and this is the first time I have been able to discuss this topic this indepth.

In other words, I respect other peoples views whether they agree with mine or not, and it's nice to have these debates with people who make good arguments.


----------



## olorin the maia

Likewise, Melkor I respect your views. (the odd remark about stretching pantaloons notwithstanding)

To answer your question, probably not. That phrase sort of defines the point. And wings certainly aren't mentioned anywhere else I've looked, although I've not read as deeply as you.

And I agree, the shadow was absolutely part of the Balrog, who probably had control over what it looked like (a prehensile shadow?)


----------



## elf boy

It seems to me I read it looking for the answer to this exact question, and I came away thinking they had wings...


----------



## Melko Belcha

This link was posted earlier but I will put it in again.
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm

Read the section on Balrogs, I think it is the best proof that the question can not be answered. 

Whether people believe it has wings or not dosen't bother me as long as people accually reads the arguments for both sides before they make their decision. 

Elf boy I disagree, but it sounds like you took the time to read through this nonsense so I respect you opinion.


----------



## Diamond Took

"The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall,"

"The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in hos lefy hand, but in his other hand G;amdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy holted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings..."

From these two quotations of _The Lord of the Rings_ And JRR Tolkien himself, I suspect that the Balrog does infact have wings.


----------



## Melko Belcha

Taken from The Encyclopedia of Arda.

How big is a Balrog? If we follow the pro-wings side of the debate, and assume that it had real wings, it's possible to come up at least some minimum figures. This is because of the classic 'its wings were spread from wall to wall', which means that its wingspan must be at least the width of the hall in which it was standing. What do we know about the hall itself?

"Before them was another cavernous hall. It was loftier and far longer than the one in which they had slept." 
"He turned left and sped across the smooth floor of the hall. The distance was greater than it had looked." 
"...a slender bridge of stone, without kerb or rail, that spanned the chasm with one curving spring of fifty feet." 
All from The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

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

"Down the centre stalked a double line of towering pillars. They were carved like boles of mighty trees whose boughs upheld the roof..." 
The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

If the Balrog's wings were real, and literally spread 'from wall to wall', its minimum wingspan is also somewhere approaching one hundred feet. This gives us a Balrog the size of a house, and remember that these are minimum values - it might be even bigger. Many would accept this without a problem - the idea of a gigantic Balrog is quite common, and it's often depicted as being thirty feet high or more, which is consistent with these estimates.

This is an important point, so we'll emphasise it. If the Balrog's wings are real, it follows necessarily that it must have been a monstrous creature with the wingspan of a small airliner.

The objection this raises is quite significant: it's very hard to explain how this behemoth had lived for more than a thousand years in an underground city designed for Dwarves. As a specific example, consider the Chamber of Mazarbul, which appears just before the Company's encounter with the Balrog. There's plenty of textual evidence about the entrance to this room. For example:

"...orcs one after another leaped into the chamber." 
The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm


...and, a moment later, they...

"...clustered in the doorway." 
The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

This is obviously a fairly narrow opening. Somehow, though, the Balrog manages to follow the orcs into the Chamber through this entrance. If a Balrog is built on the huge scale we've just discussed, it could not possibly have used this narrow entrance.

The logic of this seems inescapable: we have to scale down the Balrog to get him through the door. He can still be of 'a great height' - say ten feet tall or so - but he can't realistically be much larger than this. This idea is supported to an extent by this description from the The History of Middle-earth:

"[the Balrog] strode to the fissure, no more than man-high yet terror seemed to go before it." 
The History of Middle-earth Volume VII (The Treason of Isengard), X The Mines of Moria II: The Bridge


This is a rejected draft, so it can't be put forward as any kind of proof. It does give some insight, though, into the kind of scale that Tolkien had in mind for the Balrog. It's also borne out by the fact that he had to 'leap' across the fissure, and that he stepped onto a bridge so narrow that Dwarves could only cross it in single file. These are the actions of a more-or-less man-sized creature, not a giant.

The question of scale is a serious objection to real Balrog wings. If 'its wings were spread from wall to wall' literally refers to real wings, then the Balrog must have been gigantic. For it to get into the Chamber of Mazarbul, though, it can't have been gigantic. If the Balrog isn't gigantic, then 'its wings were spread from wall to wall' can't refer to real wings.

For the anti-wings faction, this is probably as close to a 'proof' as it's possible to get.


----------



## Lantarion

Hmm, I'd like to hear an actual argument for your opinion.. Providing us with two quotes (which have been posted here several times!) that contradict each other is not very helpful or convincing. 

If you're wondering why I say contradictory: in the first paragraph Tolkien writes *its wings were spread from wall to wall*; seems to be talking about actual, material wings alright.. 
Then in the next: *...and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings*. Doesn't seem so concrete now.. "_Like_ two wings" implies a simple analogy, whereas the former quote seems to back up the theory of actual leathery wings. 

Now I don't mean to be rude, Diamond, but you would have found this out just by reading through the last fifteen pages of this thread..


----------



## BlackCaptain

If the Balrog indeed did follow the orcs through this doorway, and was only 10 feet tall, and its shadow was as long as 100 feet, we can abandon this only 10 feet tall theory. There is no way that anything would omit shadow on that kind of scale... I would assume that Balrogs are around 15-20 feet tall, and did NOT have wings... I agree with Melko Belcha. 

I would picture these Balrogs just as i picture the Devil... Fire demons of great stature, but not as big as... the movie per say... portrays them, but monsterous none the less. The 'Shadow' then, would extend only as far as the walls of the room, being less dense as you get further away from the Balrog, and not very dense at the end of this chamber... This provides for some realism, and some extent on imagination


----------



## Jesse

I agree Morgul-King. The way I picture the Balrog is basically like the Devil. A Fire-consuming, fire-breathing demon who would do anything to get his way. Even if it means ruining lives.


----------



## Gothmog

> _Originally posted by MorgulKing _
> *If the Balrog indeed did follow the orcs through this doorway, and was only 10 feet tall, and its shadow was as long as 100 feet, we can abandon this only 10 feet tall theory. There is no way that anything would omit shadow on that kind of scale... I would assume that Balrogs are around 15-20 feet tall, and did NOT have wings... I agree with Melko Belcha.
> *


 I believe that JRRT refered to the Balrogs as being about twice the height of the Elves. There are notes that show Elves were about 7ft. tall. Therefore the Balrog would be in the region of 14ft. in height. So your guess seems to be very much in accord with the view of Tolkien himself.

I will look for quotes and post them later. Also it is good to see that someone else also agrees with me about whether I have wings or not.


----------



## BlackCaptain

I really like Gothmog's avatar. I think thats real accurate. Only real balrogs probly look a little less chubby...


----------



## faila

could it be that they are real unsubstantial wings? No Im not contradicting myself. They are wings made of shadow..... but they are their. They are madeof darkness, they can change in size It seems to me that the quotes from tolkien say they have wings, but if hey are wings of shadow or darkness than it fixes the size problem does it not?


----------



## Wonko The Sane

I think we should compromise by using a previously suggested thingie: Maybe SOME balrogs had wings and SOME didn't.

Is that ok?


----------



## BlackCaptain

That very well may be the correct answer... and it also may not be... The world may never know...

Like how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? 

THE WORLD MAY NEVER KNOW!!!!


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Exactly.
And I think my answer is a good compromise.

Case closed.


----------



## Gothmog

> _Originally posted by Wonko The Sane _
> *Exactly.
> And I think my answer is a good compromise.
> 
> Case closed.  *


Your case may well be closed. But I doubt that it will stop this debate. 

ps. BlackCaptain, I think you posted in the wrong thread.  This is the Balrog Wing thread. But it is a good answer about Bombadil.


----------



## BlackCaptain

HAhaha... Whoops... I saw the 'case closed' part and imediately thought about the Tom Bombadil debate. Oh well...


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Hehe...You're right Gothmog...hehe. 

But shh...be very quiet and maybe the debate WILL stop...

 (Everyone will be in awe that we've stopped talking about it and will have to follow suit)


----------



## BlackCaptain

I don't like the idea of some Balrogs having wings and some not... That just doesnt seem right. If there is never any solid proof, then we best leave it that Balrogs don't have wings. It is in fact alot like the Tom Bombadil topic. There is no answer. We'll never know unless someone stumbles upon some more of Tolkiens lost writings. But I don't like the idea of some having wings and some not, but I can't prove thats wrong.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Look...I don't see what's wrong with some having them and some not having them.

If it works for dragons it works for balrogs.

You're just trying to be difficult.


----------



## BlackCaptain

Youve got a good point there with the Dragons, but that was written about. Tolkien made it clear that there were different kinds of dragons. Some had wings, some were cold drakes, some were just plain old giant serpants. No where did Tolkien write about different types of Balrogs, or ever even write about Balrog's having wings.


----------



## BlackCaptain

So what if I am trying to be difficult! I wanna keep this debate alive! It is a great one!


----------



## Wonko The Sane

It can't be that great if you have to post twice in a row like that.

Anyway, if you ask me it doesn't matter if Tolkien didn't write about balrogs in the way I suggested. It leaves my hypothesis (that I stole from whoever had it first) just as likely as any other argument for or against balrogs having wings!

There's just no proof either way, so any answer is just as likely as the other.

Except that Balrogs were in fact giant flaming ducks.
Although there's no proof that they _aren't_! Hehe.


----------



## Lantarion

> _Originally posted by BlackCaptain _
> *I really like Gothmog's avatar. I think thats real accurate. Only real balrogs probly look a little less chubby...   *


Accurate?! It looks like a huge lump of burning charcoal!


----------



## BlackCaptain

BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER!!!

*runs away crying*


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Gothmog's avatar looks like a flaming teddy bear!


----------



## Gothmog

Now you know why I normaly wear the Shadow.


----------



## BlackCaptain

Cuz it covers up that beer belly??


----------



## Gothmog

Got it in one.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

HAH!!! 

If that Balrog wasn't made of FIRE I'd HUG it!


----------



## BlackCaptain

I'd be careful... His leg looks pretty rough. you might scratch yourself!


----------



## Wonko The Sane

He's not rough! He's CUDDLY!


----------



## BlackCaptain

Yeah! Ash and flame are very cuddly!...


----------



## Wonko The Sane

In this context they are!!

LOOK AT HOW FLUFFY HE LOOKS!!!


----------



## BlackCaptain

Fluffy or Flamey? The last time I saw a giant huge demented teddy bear was in the Hunter Reckoning video game


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Fluffy AND flamey!!


----------



## Wulf of Dunland

I didn't memorize everything from the books, so I wouldn't know for a fact B's have wings. 
At least I want them to have wings. And it seems more logical to me somehow.


----------



## BlackCaptain

Logical probly isnt the word... It was probly your first impression


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Hold on now BC, maybe logical IS the word he meant to use.

Maybe he sees a logical reason to assume or suppose Balrog's had wings.

Don't discount his opinion or change his meaning without first giving him a chance to explain.

Perhaps you could have said, "Are you sure logical is what you meant?" Rather than merely stating that logical was the wrong choice of words.


----------



## Gothmog

What difference does it make? Logic is only used to explain what we already believe anyway. There is no Logical reason for viewing Balrogs with wings or without wings. We each get an impression of what it looks like and then come up with logical reasons to prove our view. 

Except for me of course. I just look in the Mirror.


----------



## BlackCaptain

I said *probly*! It is probly the wrong word because I think he was going for the fact that everyones first intuition was that Balrog's have wings, making it intuitional, not logical.


----------



## Elendil3119

This quote has probably been mentioned before, and if it has, can someone point me to the right page? 

From Appendix A, Section III (Durin's Folk): 


> Thus (the dwarves) roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth.



From this passage I believe it is possible to conclude that the Balrogs did in fact have wings. However, the word "flying" could be interpreted "fleeing", though I think Tolkien would have used "fleeing" had he meant it.


----------



## Gothmog

But Tolkien has many creatures flying. Orcs fleeing from dwarves. This from the same source.


> then Azog laughed, and he lifted up his head of let forth a great yell of triumph; but the cry died in his throat. For he saw that all his host in the valley was in a rout, and the Dwarves when this way and that slaying as they would, and those that could escape from them were *flying south*, shrieking as they ran. And hard by all the soldiers of his guard lay dead. He turned and fled back towards the Gate.


Elves. This from the Silmarillion


> But as the third age of the captivity of Melkor drew on, the Dwarves became troubled, and they spoke to King Thingol, saying that the Valar had not rooted out utterly the evils of the North, and now the remnant, having long multiplied in the dark, were coming forth once more and roaming far and wide. 'There are fell beasts,' they said, 'in the land east of the mountains, and your ancient kindred that dwell there are *flying* from the plains to the hills.'


 Also


> Huan it was that found Lúthien *[flying* like a shadow surprised by the daylight under the trees, when Celegorm and Curufin rested a while near to the western eaves of Doriath


 Hobbits, This from The Fellowship of the ring.


> 'It can't be helped, Sam,' said Frodo sadly. He had suddenly realized that *flying* from the Shire would mean more painful partings than merely saying farewell to the familiar comforts of Bag End. 'I shall have to go. But' - and here he looked hard at Sam - 'if you really care about me, you will keep that dead secret. See? If you don't, if you even breathe a word of what you've heard here, then I hope Gandalf will turn you into a spotted toad and fill the garden full of grass-snakes.'


 So the use of that particular quote does not show that Balrogs had wings only that one or more left Thangorodrim in something of a hurry.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

And another thing in regards to saying "Flying"...Tolkien would not necessarily have said fleeing had he meant it.
As Gothy pointed out. 

But he forgot my favourite!! 



> Fly, you fools!





AND:



> _Originally posted by BlackCaptain _
> *I said probly! It is probly the wrong word because I think he was going for the fact that everyones first intuition was that Balrog's have wings, making it intuitional, not logical. *



So instead ask him what he meant?

I agree with Gothy here that there isn't a LOGICAL reason for what we believe about Balrogs, but maybe that was the actual word that Wulf meant. I'm not saying that it IS logical, but that his choice to say that it was logical to him is still his prerogative.


----------



## Inderjit S

Here are some interesting quotes from History of Home 7, LoTR Part 2: _The Treason of Isengard _ 



> There is a pencilled note written on the manuscript against the description of the Balrog. Alter description of Balrog it seemed to be of mans shape but it's form could not be plainly discerned. It _felt_ larger then it looked



Could the statment 'it felt larger then it looked' be a explanation of of why there were so many references to it's great size.

He also comments earlier on, and this made it on into the finished draft of LoTR thay it was 'man-high' which according to 
_Disaster of the Gladden Fields_ (U.T) was 6 foot 4, but there is a contradictory statement in _Of Dwarves and Men_ (HoME 12) claiming that the average Numenorean height was 7 foot, though this could be a average of them close to their coming to M-E and the 6 foot 4 to their height in the end of the T.A

Bakc, to the text in hand, understandably, it is just a rough manuscript of LoTR but it may still give a good indication to what Balrogs may have looked like in the BoLT legendarium (primary the _Fall of Gondolin_) and the early Quenta Silmarilllions. Here is Tolkien's more detailed description from the rough manuscripts;



> a figure strode out the fissure, no more then man-high yet terror seemed to go before it. They could see the furnace fire of it's eyes from afar; it's arms were very long it had a red [tounge]?


 Home 7; The Bridge


----------



## Celebthôl

*More evidence that Balrogs had wings...*

Something came to me when reading a certain post:

" In that despair my enemy was my only hope, and I pursued him, clutching at his heel. Thus he brought me back at last to the secret ways of Khazad-Dum:"

This clearly means that the Balrog flew back up as there were clearly no stairs back up, else the nasties at the bottom would be all over K-D, it was also Gandalfs "only hope" to clutch his heel, if he did not clutch the heel the Balrog would have flown off and left him 

Prolly not the right place for this....i sence a **Merge** from Lanty or Ithy comin up


----------



## Lantarion

No, it is the right place for it. And it is a fascinating observation..!


----------



## BlackCaptain

Well it is the endless STAIR... Mabey he was just really close behind him at his heels...


----------



## Celebthôl

But if there was an endless stair, how come the nasties at the bottom of Kazad-Dum hadnt climbed it and infested Moria? After all that time they surely would have done...

Welcome back BC


----------



## BlackCaptain

Who said there were 'nasties' at the bottom? And who said they didn't get out? Who said they even knew about the *Secret* passage?

Thanks!


----------



## Celebthôl

Gandalf did.

Did you ever hear them mentioned before Gandalf fell down there?

I didnt either 

Did anyone ever talk about them? the "nameless things" the "gnawed the earth"

Nope


----------



## BlackCaptain

Ohh... THOSE nameless things.... *acts suspicious*. Oh well... Mabey they liked it down there! Perhaps they were like Gollum and just hated sunlight and loved the depths of the earth!?


----------



## Celebthôl

Or perhaps there was no way for them to get up except to "FLY"  ergo im right


----------



## BlackCaptain

No... If they lived that far down I'm sure they wouldn't be too sunlight friendly


----------



## Celebthôl

how much sunlight did you notice in Moria?!


----------



## BlackCaptain

Exactly! If they live that far down in the earth they wouldn't want to come near sun-light!


----------



## Celebthôl

Hmmm, im not gonna fall into this, we all know there was no sunlight in Moria, therfore, they could not fear the mansions


----------



## Lantarion

Hmm, although your observation is interesting Thol, AFAIK the Endless Stair ends on Zirak-zigil, and does not 'emerge' in Moria itself at all.. But I could be wrong.


----------



## Celebthôl

not that i distrust your thoughts, but where are the quotes? (sorry to turn into one of them)


----------



## BlackCaptain

Well perhaps they never went up the Endless stair into the Mansions because the pH wasn't just right!?

Also I don't think that anything living that far down would just want to leave their cold wet enviornment! Remember there were Orcs, and the Balrog up in the mansions. They might not have wanted any confrontation with anything. I wouldn't.


----------



## Celebthôl

you dont think Balrogs had wings do you...


----------



## BlackCaptain

Nope. There's never anything that says they have wings. Why should I believe? The movie? A confusing use of metaphorical phrases? Nope... I don't think they had wings.


----------



## Manveru

*Oh...this ''Balrog's wings' problem''*

I voted 'Yes'...
'Cause whether they really had them or not , though I think the book says they had:


> *The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall;*
> _The Fellowship Of The Ring - The Bridge Of Khazad-dum_


As an artist (I shouldn't say it--what artist am I) I think that Balrogs look better with their wings than without them...but this is only my thought...


----------



## ely

Ummm... I think they had some sort of wings, maybe they were made of shadow or fire; but if I were a Balrog, I would like to have wings  

I don't know why Balrogs didn't fly, maybe they couldn't or didn't want to...


----------



## Arvedui

Of course Balrogs had wings!

Just take a look at this drawing of Glofindel fighting the Balrog in Gondolin:


----------



## Jesse

The Balrog had wings. It showed that in the film. I'd have to re-read the books to be positive.


----------



## Flame of Anor

> _Originally posted by ely _
> *Ummm... I think they had some sort of wings, maybe they were made of shadow or fire; but if I were a Balrog, I would like to have wings
> 
> I don't know why Balrogs didn't fly, maybe they couldn't or didn't want to... *


 Maybe it was just to make them look more ominous and frightening.

Wow, we are still talking about this...it has been a while since i have been in here. wow


----------



## Feanorian

> Maybe it was just to make them look more ominous and frightening.



That makes no sense. Why have wings if they are just for decoration...humans don't have any decoration body parts...all of them serve a purpose.


----------



## Celebthôl

Chickens have them but dont fly....


----------



## Devushka

I think humans have some parts of our bodies that do not serve a purpose. i mean, i bet anyone can think of more, but some are: arm hair (it doesn't protect us at all anymore, like it was once useful), an extra finger (we could just have 4), and why do we have fat thighs??? and besides i am sure the balrog used its wings for something???


----------



## Dwarf Lord

I personally belive that balrogs had wings. In LOTR FOTR it says that there is a great shadow as of wings behind the balrog, but later says that the balrogs wings are streatched across the whole width of the second hall in the first deep of moria. That might explain why the balrog was unable to fly. It mearly did not have enough room, but then again it didn't fly when it fell into the unknown depths beneath the bridge. Too much to think about if you ask me. 
Speaking of body parts that are of no use, you are asking biology questions. I didn't pay much attention to the teacher, but I do know that alot of creatures have body parts that have become useless as evolution has kicked in. One i remember is snake hips. A remnant of some former shape the snake had when thaey had legs. It is possible that the balrog had wings but could not use. just like an ostrige(spelling?)


DWARF LORD


----------



## Gothmog

There is one problem with the "Evolution" arguement about Balrogs having wings that no longer have their original function.

Balrog's Never Evolved!!!!

They did not "Evolve" from nor into anything. They were Ainur who clothed themselves in the "Raiment" of Arda appearing as creatures of Shadow and Flame. The shape they chose at that time was the one they kept. So if the Balrog had wings that did not work it could not be for any other reason than they never did so.

However, the theory of Wings making the Balrog look more fearsome works even better for the Shadow. This Shadow would have all the advantages of looking fearsome without causing the problems that physical wings would for a land-bound creature in moving around.


----------



## Celebthôl

Indeed...

But lets take the question to someone who would know for sure, the Lord of the Balrogs...Mr Gothmog sir, do you, or do you not posses wings?


----------



## Gothmog

I certainly do not have wings.


----------



## Celebthôl

There we go, as much as i dont like thy answer, i must accept it


----------



## Gothmog

Glad to have been of help.


----------



## Dwarf Lord

Aye, evolution did not occur, what you say is correct. But I merely relate it to the fact because it was obviously held up in some small hole in the ground before the miners unearthed it. Therefore maybe it's wings had laid useless in the deep dark. The whole time during the balrogs slumber or whatever the muscles dwindled rendeing the wings as a useless "mathom" perhaps. Anyway maybe when the balrog spread his wings in the second hall it was merely a big streach before he took on gandalf. 

DWARF LORD


----------



## Lafeinyis

Hmm...I onestly didnt cech that part when i first red the bookes....I just asoumed that did when I sau the move aftor..cool! i'll hve to go and read it agen!


----------



## Gothmog

Dwarf Lord.

Atrophy is certainly a far more plausible an arguement than evolution to explain the lack of use of such wings. However, it still leaves the problem of the only flying creatures posessed by Morgoth were the up-graded dragons led by Ancalagon the Black. This problem does not exist with a Shadow that can be extended giving an apearence similar to wings.

Perhaps he should have done more of his Set-up exersises *Before* entering the hall.


----------



## Dwarf Lord

Yes I see. After rereading The bridge of Khazad-dum. I now believe that when tolkien blantly says wings he is refering to the shadow behind the balrog that seemed to have taken shape as wings. But better yet why would thay have taken the shape of wings. And was the shadow as in the movie ash? Possibly not. Maybe it was just the great shadow that envelopes the balrog. You know they really screwed up a good part of the book in the movie. Friggen orc monkies climbing everywhere! and no fire-pit! And why didn't the orcs just attack instead of surrounding them? Stupid...STUPID...stupid movie!


DWARF LORD(off the subject?...just a little)


----------



## Gothmog

My view on the wing/shadow is that the Balrog is surounded by darkness that it can extend at will. As for your comments about the film. I totaly agree.


----------



## Dwarf Lord

Yeah, that sounds about right. I wonder why then it would not use it against enemies instead of making wing shapes? It would a very good tactic to surround it's enemies with the shadow, but I am starting to ramble again...I'll stop!


DWARF LORD


----------



## BlackCaptain

I believe thats what Durin's Bane was trying to accomplish whilst struggling agaisnt Gandalf the Grey. The Flame of Anor burned to brightly with Gandalf though... Or whatever that light was called

Shadow and fear is the most effective tool any servant of Melko has. Throw the enemy into despair, then have a bunch of Orcs chase after them and kill them while they're going crazy. Gandalf came through for the Fellowship though and sort of countered this Shadow attack, forcing the Balrog into physical combat.

that's my theory... please excuse it if it's a little on the insane side


----------



## Niirewen

I would have to say that I do not think Balrogs have wings. If they had wings, then why did Durin's Bane fall into the abyss with Gandalf when the bridge of Khazad-dum broke? If he had wings, couldn't he have just flown out? But that's just my crazy theory.. I could very well be wrong.


----------



## Roilya

if the balrog had wings, why didnt he fly up, when he was falling to the floor. with gandalf


----------



## Khôr’nagan

It tried to, but Gandalf didn't let it. Balrogs have wings. That's a fact. No point anyone debating it, because you'd be wrong if you said they didn't. They do have wings, and they always did. End of story.


----------



## Gothmog

> _Originally posted by Khôr’nagan _
> *It tried to, but Gandalf didn't let it. Balrogs have wings. That's a fact. No point anyone debating it, because you'd be wrong if you said they didn't. They do have wings, and they always did. End of story. *


 As I have said before.

Please will you provide the proof to back up this statement. And I wish you luck in finding any.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

I'd like to see you try to spread wings and fly while being hacked and slashed and stabbed by a sword like Glamdring (The sword of the High King Turgon), not to mention the countless bolts of lightning. What's more, there's no room to spread its wings in that cramped hole. And why do I need to give what countless others already have? "The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its _*WINGS*_ were spread from wall to wall." Need I say more? No, because it's _proved_.


----------



## Lantarion

Look, did you ever wonder why this thread has 19 pages worth of text?! Your so-called 'proof' is nothing new, in fact both of those points have been argued innumerable times. Please read through the entire thread before posting; and any _new_ evidence is always welcome.
What you have expressed is your own opinion, and you believe that you have the proof to abck it up. If you believe that Valaraukar have wings, that's great. I agree with you (except I don't believe that they are material wings), and yet I have no conclusive evidence to back it up. Tolkien never was clear on the matter, which is precisely why this thread was made in the first place!


----------



## Khôr’nagan

I know this 'evidence' isn't new, but it's solid proof. And, I did complain, saying '_And why do I need to give what countless others already have?_' That is, why do I need to post something that's been posted so much by others when it provides proof that they had wings. And, I didn't say they were necessarily material, just that it was my first inclination (though I wasn't clear about it). All I'm saying is, How can people debate whether or not they have wings when it says so in the book? More precisely this thread should be named 'Material wings or no?', because it says that they have wings in the book. So, that's that. end of story. They had wings, and they always did. Go on debating whether or not they were material or not, but stop saying they didn't have them (talking to everyone in general who claim Balrogs have no wings). Because they _*DID*_ have them. Denying it is futile. So that's what I've got to say, and I've said it. They had wings. It is a definite, undeniable fact. Whether they were material wings or not, that's anybody's guess.


----------



## Arvedui

I don't know if you have read the whole thread, but in case you haven't, there is a number of TTF-members that don't agree with your view. Which is why this thread takes up some *25* pages, and not 19 as Lanty stated 

If you have read the thread, you know my view on the matter, if not...


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Well, fortunitely for me, I am not nearly arrogant so as to say that 'I'm right, you're wrong, so nyeaah!' Because then I would be wrong. I simply do not understand how it can be denied. How can you deny that passage from the book? I'm honestly asking, what is the reason that you deny this _apparent_ fact? (And by the way, people, I do not think it was a metaphor or a simile or anything like that. He said 'it's wings', and he meant that it had wings, whether they were of shadow or not.)

And, finally, I apologize for my immediate reaction of saying that I was definitely right, because nothing's definite, and there's no way to be 100% sure of anything. I took too much of a defensive position on what I believe is fact, and I shouldn't have. I am easily carried away.


----------



## Arvedui

Tolkien uses the word "wings" in a number of circumstances, which has been proven before in this very thread. May I suggest that you read the following:
by Cian 
also by Cian 
as is this one 
and finally this 

I believe it all comes down to ones personal belief.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Well, I have just finished reading (most of) the prior posts, and my position stands firm. I mean no offence to anyone, but it seems to me that everyone's nitpicking about tiny details. I said the wings might be shadow, like I now know so many others do, to, but I strongly believe, much like Lantarion (though I hadn't read the prior posts yet) that the balrog had wings, but it was too cramped in there to use them. What's more, after falling into the pit, I quote myself, "_I'd like to see you try to spread wings and fly while being hacked and slashed and stabbed by a sword like Glamdring (The sword of the High King Turgon), not to mention the countless bolts of lightning._"

Finally, I pity those of you who cannot imagine balrogs looking cool while flying, because, (believe me), it is comletely a matter of your own imagination, and Balrogs definitely can look cool when flying. I find myself comparing it to the Hulk (in the 2003 movie, not the crumby TV show) jumping up into the air, and while in the air flapping its ings (though only one full flap every 3 seconds; it's wings are HUGE). And, as for the muscular issue, they're _magical_. Every ounce of muscle it has is at least 50 times stronger than the same weight of human muscles, because it's just that good.


----------



## Gothmog

Fine. You have now shown that the shadow surrounding the Balrog can give it the apearance of wings, something that was not in dispute. Now you have only two things left to prove from your posts.

1. That they have *Always* had wings.

2. That they can fly.

The first is completely wrong as Tolkien only once mentioned "Wings" of any description in all the times he mentioned Balrogs.

As for the second Balrogs have always been used by Tolkien as Ground Troops.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Hey, now. Would you just listen for a minute? I have this to say:

Our opinions differ, quite obviously, about whether ot not Balrogs had wings. There is insufficient evidence to prove either opinion right or wrong. I cannot prove that they did, but you cannot prove that they didn't. We are at a point where it is useless to argue, debate, discuss, or any other conversation, that is based upon proving our points. In the second paragragh of my last post, I described how I would imagine a Balrog flying. Whether it could or couldn't doesn't matter, as it was theoretical. I therefore come to the conclusion that this thread be ceased. As far as I can tell, this thread only creates dissention among TTF members. If newbs who haven't seen it yet want to look at the evidence, they can just go to the archive. This is a source of anger and aggravation, and quite obviously is not productive. Let it be, and move on to things wiith sufficient evidence to be proved. I have spoken.


----------



## Gothmog

I am quite willing to listen to your thoughts and opinions.

I have no problem with your opinion about this subject but when you enter a discussion of this type with a catagorical statement in the way you did here you must be ready to defend your position. You are not the first to have had this very problem on this thread.

This thread causes in fact very little dissention among the members of TTF. It does from time to time however, allow for some very lively debate and therefore is of some use both for this reason and to allow new members to give their opinions on this matter without having to start a new thread for it.

I also find it interesting that you find this thread to be a source of "of anger and aggravation" Since as far as I can recall no other member has made this complaint.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

*Flae govannen.*

*I said that because it both angered and agrivated me, and that can lead to dissention. I become quickly angered and agrivated when (from my perspective) people ignore or disagree with solid, undeniable fact. What's more, they then proceed to act all smart and knowledgeable (whether they are or not), while to me it seems like stupidity and arrogance, since they could not be smart if they could even think about denying factual information. Most of this is (most likely) unwarranted and has no place here. One particular statement that angered me was you (Gothmog) answering someone's question of whether or not you have wings, and you saying 'I most certainly do not.' This angered me because you know no better than anyone else, and (in my opinion; once again probably unfounded) you have absolutely no right to say that, whether your screen-name is Gothmog or not. Thus (to me) it makes you seem like an [color=sky blue]editted** who wouldn't know a Balrog if it walked up and kicked him in the face (which you most certainly are not). So as you can see, this has quite angered me, whether it should have or not. I will, therefore, cease to come to this thread (to prevent the dissention I would most certainly cause). I do this since (as you say) nobody else feels similarly, and I find it unfortunate that I feel thus. I appologize for anything I may have said that is offensive, as it is (most likely) unfounded and inappropriately placed. I have ADD and am extremely prone to anger.*[/COLOR]


----------



## Gothmog

Khôr’nagan 

I do not know if you will look in on this thread after your last post. However, I will give an answer.



> One particular statement that angered me was you (Gothmog) answering someone's question of whether or not you have wings, and you saying 'I most certainly do not.'


 The statement you refer to was given in answer to a rather 'Tonuge-in-Cheek' question directed to me. As I was personaly asked this question I had every right to answer as I saw fit. The reason for the answer I gave was Two-fold.

(a) My view on this question is that Balrogs do not have wings. That is to say that while the extention of the shadow can give the illusion of wings it is still only shadow.
(b) On a personal note, I as a "Bog-Standard" human do not have Wings.

Therefore I stated as you quoted "I certainly do not." What you failed to notice however was that at the end of the statement was a "Big Grin" Smiley which is used to denote a Joke. And in the case of Celebthôl, his answer also ended with a Big Grin showing that despite his answer he did not accept what I said and knew it to be a joke.

If such jokes anger you then it is likely that you will find many of the threads on this site very annoying.

On the subject of "solid, undeniable fact", this is something that you should be very wary of. Such things are the stones with which to fence in and confine the intelect.


----------



## Lantarion

Well spoken Gothmog. And Khôr'nagan, I urge you to keep your temper in check if you do not wish to be given more Warning Points. This can be discussed perfectly civilly.

Now, just to make my position clear, I will tell you my opinion of the matter and offer what scant evidence there is to back it up. 
Gothmog took the words right out of my mouth: I believe that Valaraukar, as Maiar and largely incorporal beings composed of fire and 'shadow', do not possess material, functioning wings of any kind. 


> *FotR, 'The Bridge of Khazad-dûm*
> The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and *the shadow about it* reached out *like* two vast wings.





> *FotR, 'The Bridge of Khazad-dûm*
> The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It steped 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...


So here we see the two famous quotes, the very base of this discussion. The former equates the darkness and shadow of the Balrog to 'vast wings' with a simile. The latter quote, which you deem to be irrefutable evidence, I argue only uses the term 'wings' because it is the shape that the Valarauko's dark essence has taken at that time, and as a literary tool Tolkien gives us an image of a textbook 'demon' or 'devil': a dark, fiery creature with horns and batlike wings. 


> *The Silmarillion, 'Valaquenta'*
> For of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these *spirits* were the Valaraukar, the *scourges of fire* that in Middle-Earth were called Balrogs, demons of teror.


This passage shows that the Valaraukar were spirits, not actual corporeal creatures (like the movie implies); the Istari, though Maiar, had the ability to take on a corporeal form as a tool or gift given specifically by the Valar. No such gift is ever said to have been given to Valaraukar, at least not in the published Silmarillion. 

Here is the evidence, both sufficient to justify my opinion and all that I feel inclined to look for at this time (though the few other quotes involving Valaraukar have probably been given on this thread elsewhere).
Now that I have given several points and quotes to back up my view, you are free to contest it; provided that you have evidence to justify your claims.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

*In response to Gothmog*

Wo, sorry  ... I don't know why I said that.  I guess I was in a bad mood. Oh, well... Can't say I don't deserve it, as I wouldn't like it if it was someone else saying it to me. I guess it didn't sound so bad at the time, but looking back...

('I most certainly do not') It didn't really anger me, just annoyed (though I hadn't realized it was a joke; different people use things in different ways, and it can be difficult to decipher the meanings)... I was in a bad mood (not an excuse, I know) and pointing out little things. I shouldn't have said those things, and I'm sorry. Although, I was not sarcastic when saying "which you most certainly are not", though it hardly makes it less offending. And I also note (since it is in my nature to defend myself), that I said "from my perspective", and this is because the evidence stated provides (for _*me*_ insufficient evidence to the contrary of Balrogs having wings. If you came up with a line where Tolkien wrot "Balrogs have no wings", or something of the like, I would then apologize, admit my failure and your success, and congragulate you on your dpeth of perception. I say this honestly, because that's what I do when someone proves me wrong. But, as of yet, there is no solid proof for the contrary (and the way I interperet the lines makes me belive that they is non-metaphorical and fact). Yet in science (my favorite subject), facts are constantly proven and unproven, and I am willing to admit defeat (if/when it comes). I am always told (by teachers, classmates, etc.) that I am bright, a 'Genious', 'deep', appreciative, and overall intellectually advanced (for my grade; I have not stayed back). So, one thing I would like to ask (though I do believe I'm treading on thin ice) that you not mention anything "fencing in my intellect". I do not keep things that are proven incorrect (that are not based upon onpinion, like whether or not one likes McDonalds) to remain incorrect. When proved wrong, I admit it. I am proud (somewhat), but I also have a broad perception, and I can admit when I'm wrong. I take such comments referring to my intellect _quite_ personally (although I know you were, in no way, meaning to be insulting).

Of course, none of this makes what I said any better. I apologize to everyone, but especially Gothmog. Won't do it again. This'll help me learn my lesson. I'm not a jerk (usually), and I hope I can right this wrong. Perhaps "serving my time" will be enough, but doubtful...


----------



## Gothmog

Khôr’nagan
I thank you for your apology, Freely given Freely accepted.

As for my comment about the “stones with which to fence in and confine the intelect” it was to point out that any person can blind themselves by these things. Undeniable facts are only proven false by someone Denying them. This is a mistake that over a number of years I have often made myself. Many things that when I was in school were “Undeniable” and accepted by me as such have since been either disproved or called into serious question by others.

I gave the comment not to insult (as you have already noted) but in hope.

There are no “Undeniable Facts” All such are simply opinions and interpretations that have been accepted by the majority. Do not fall into this trap but let your intellect soar where it will.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

All I mean is, to me, 1+_n_=2. I think _n_=1, and you think _n_=2. Therefore, while you think 1+_n_=3, I do not. If _n_ is proven to be 2, then I will accept it. But, until then, the evidence given tells (by my interpretation) that _n_=1. It is a fact that 1+1=2, and that is undeniable. But, should it be proven that _n_=2, then I will accept that _n_ wasn't 1 in the first place, but always was 2. It is a fact that 1+1=2, and it is a fact that 1+2=3. Which one applies, however, is what is in question. Thus, is the answer 2 or 3? Do Balrogs have wings or not? I admit I know not for certain. Perhaps, none shall ever _*know*_...


----------



## Lantarion

> *Originally posted by Khôr'nagan*
> All I mean is, to me, 1+n=2. I think n=1, and you think n=2. Therefore, while you think 1+n=3, I do not. If n is proven to be 2, then I will accept it. But, until then, the evidence given tells (by my interpretation) that n=1. It is a fact that 1+1=2, and that is undeniable. But, should it be proven that n=2, then I will accept that n wasn't 1 in the first place, but always was 2. It is a fact that 1+1=2, and it is a fact that 1+2=3.


Woah! Now there's a tongue-twister. 
But thank you for apologizing; your WPs will be gone after a while, don't worry.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

It's just simple algebra. The variable, _n_, is either 1 or 2. It is not known for certain, however, and thus it is represtented by the variable, because it can change.

Oh, and by the way... Gothmog, you're 45?! Oh my gosh! I'm out of my league... You're three times my age! Jesus crackers, man! I thought you were a teenager! MAN!


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Actually the logic and the algebra both got a bit muddled, basically what you started out saying was that you both thought n was a different integer in the same equation, unfortunately that suggests that you are definitely right and your oponent definitely wrong, however your analogy morphed into a set of two different equations, where you were both right, and the logic with which you tried to explain things broke down somewhere around there.

Let's try to steer away from complicated analogies...they give me a headache. Not because I can't understand them, but because they could be stated so much more simply. For example: You think Balrogs have wings. I think they don't. If there's ever proof found that they do, I'll concede and accept it. Unfortunately, there is no proof, so we're both going to go on thinking our own thoughts.

It's so much simpler.


----------



## Lantarion

> *Originally posted by Khôr'nagan*
> It's just simple algebra.


Yes I realize that, obviously; the way you rpesented it was just too muddled to impress me.
You shouldn't assume that poeple know less than you, y'know.


----------



## Gothmog

Khôr’nagan 

As for my age it means little on here as there are many youngsters like yourself who are as good or better than me in many ways (although your reaction was interesting). In about 30 years you will see that all age does is allow you time to make more mistakes from which you can (hopefully) learn.

On a side note. The Equations you use are interesting. However, your claim as to the result of 1+1 depends on an assumption of Base. 1+1 (base 10) does indeed equal 2. However, 1+1 (base 2) equals 10. And 1+2 (base 3) also equals 10.

So in this question I would say that you are using Base “Wings” while I am using Base “Shadow”. Therefore it would seem that we are Both Correct.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

I have absolutely no idea what you just said.  I'm only in 10th grade, and I have know idea what 'base' means (in _that_ context). However, I do think I understand what you mean, in that what our interpretations give, we are both correct, and there is no incorrect answer/interperetation, (or something of the like). 

But anyway, what I was meaning about the age difference is that you've (probably) been a Tolkien fan for something like 30 years, (twice my age), while I only started with Tolkien a little over a year ago. Heck, you could have even _met_ Tolkien while I was still years from even being born. That gives you a big advantage (at least over me), regardless that I have read 9 Tolkien books. Also, one thing that made me feel more upset by your position on Balrogs was that I thought you were just a teen-ager. You being 45 changes everything, as you have a right (more than me) to be saying things about them, as I am still in my youth and not yet reached my prime, at which time I would be more mature and intelligent. You have (possibly) had as many years to think about Tolkien's world as I've had months.

I am, however, the most stubborn person I know, and I don't give up very easily. I was simply _surprised_ that you were so old (not that 45 is old, only that you're older than I thought). Heck, my dad's 44 and my mom's 52, (or something like that). And, let's just say that I've not won many battles against them (though I have won some; being stubborn has its advantages).


----------



## Thuringwethil

*No new evidence...*

My original impression about the subject was that yes, valaraukar do have physical (bat-like) wings. (And I blame Bakshi.) However, as time went by and I read more of Tolkien's texts, and re-read them, I started to feel otherwise. Now my opinion is reverse: valaraukar do not have wings, and they also cannot fly. This comes from the overall impression I had from all texts I have read. Winglessness just fits into (my) picture much better, whereas wingedness leads to too many weird and made-up explanations. My "evidence" is pretty much the same quoted by others already (although I got some new info too, thanks to you ).

More pondering about balrog physiology, just opinions and hypothesis etc:

They are around 15 feet tall, man-shaped (no wings or tail) and sort of corporeal (you can hit 'em but it's not blood that's spilling; they can be killed with extremely strong, preferably repeated impacts, such as free fall into sharp stones). They appear to change their size a bit, but this can be only optic trick or illusion (no opinion yet). They have two "other bodies" along with the physical one: one of fire and other of shadow (unlight). These "bodies" balrog can shape at will, except fire can be extinguished for a short time (with a big effort). Unlight can be shaped to a cloak or wings, or just fill whole room with it and slaughter everyone in the dark...  Shadow and flame are balrog's main weapons, and (enormous) physical strength comes to picture later. Weapons used by them are of steel and other normal materials (but *not* normal size), made by their slaves (orcs etc). Balrog can make a sword burst in flames without melting it. Their skill with whip (which I personally picture to be made of steel chain) is nightmarishly high, but other weapons tend to be "secondary". Gothmog's skill with an axe sounds like an exception, and Durin's Bane seems to suck as a swordfighter (but with a whip... uh-oh).

Just something that I've been wondering/pondering... RPG byproduct if you like.


----------



## Lantarion

Sounds excellent, by-product or no. 
But on the other hand, before saying whether Valaraukar do or do not have wings we must present the nature of 'wings' themselves. Are they material wings, or just wings in general? Because whereas I do not think they have corporeal, material wings, I do believe that they have wings composed of the ethereal substance Tolkien describes as 'shadow'.


----------



## Gothmog

> _Originally posted by Khôr’nagan _
> *I have absolutely no idea what you just said.  I'm only in 10th grade, and I have know idea what 'base' means (in that context). However, I do think I understand what you mean, in that what our interpretations give, we are both correct, and there is no incorrect answer/interperetation, (or something of the like).
> 
> 
> I am, however, the most stubborn person I know, and I don't give up very easily. I was simply surprised that you were so old (not that 45 is old, only that you're older than I thought). Heck, my dad's 44 and my mom's 52, (or something like that). And, let's just say that I've not won many battles against them (though I have won some; being stubborn has its advantages). *


As for the first paragraph, don't worry about knowing exactly what I said. You did indeed understand the meaning exactly and gave a very accurate statement of the meaning. 

I aggree totaly about being stubborn. As you will no doubt find out on other threads I too am a very stubborn person. 

As for your other comments, it is true that I have had more time to think about Tolkien's work but I have learned more about this since I have been on this site than I did in the years before joining. So You will find that reading the views of the many lore-masters on here and discussing the ideas that are posted will improve your enjoyment of and knowledge about the works of Tolkien very quickly.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Lantarion, I haven't been following this thread as closely as I should, I'll admit. I haven't read every thread.
But your idea of "wings" of shadow is actually a very very interesting point. While there is still room for debate, Tolkien's phrasing seems to suggest the Valaraukar did NOT have corporeal wings, but wings made of "shadow" would actually fit very well into the descriptions we DO have.


----------



## Lantarion

Yes, that is what I believe. Of course it is natural to *assume* that when Tolkien uses the term 'wings' he isn't talking about the shadow-essense wings but about actual, even 'batlike' wings; however, I believe that this assumption is rash. It did take me a while to come tothis conclusion though, and it remains my opinion, nothing more.


----------



## Ancalagon

I would tend to agree with the Gothmog camp on this question. One thing that always intrigued me about this question is why Balrogs never seemed to fly. I guess it is a logical consideration, especially when one thinks of all the evil creatures that issued forth from Angband. Only once however do we know that any 'winged-creature' comes forth to battle, no other instance do we see or hear of flight.


> Thus it was that he drew far ahead of the van of his host; and seeing this the servants of Morgoth turned to bay, and there issued from Angband Balrogs to aid them. There upon the confines of Dor Daedeloth, the land of Morgoth, Fëanor was surrounded, with few friends about him. Long he fought on, and undismayed, though he was wrapped in fire and wounded with many wounds; but at the last he was smitten to the ground by Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs, whom Ecthelion after slew in Gondolin. *The Silmarillion*


Here we can see that those Balrogs who fought against Fëanor, did so upon the 'confines of Dor Daedeloth' interestingly enough, there is no mention of flight, nor that they raised themselves up to bear down upon the host nor did they take flight from the gates of Angband. However, were Balrogs given to flight, why then did they not also issue forth against the Valar?


> Then, seeing that his hosts were overthrown and his power dispersed, Morgoth quailed, and he dared not to 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 before 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.


 Now of course this proves nothing except that Balrogs are not described in the same manner as Ancalagon and his winged-fleet. However, neither does suggest that Balrogs are bereft of the ability. However, there is other mention made of Balrogs, for example when the come to the aid of Morgoth and drive Ungoliant away.


> Far beneath the rained halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their Lord; and now swiftly they arose, and passing over Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.


 As you can see, it says here, 'now swiftly they arose' does this mean they arose from the depths of Angband, which I personally believe it does, or could it mean they arose in flight and passed over Hithlum? I do not consider Balrogs had the ability to fly, however they had pace, speed which is referred to in the Silmarillion;


> Then suddenly Morgoth sent forth great rivers of flame that ran down swifter than Balrogs from Thangorodrim


 This to me suggests strongly that Balrogs are earth-bound, which is important when attempting to question why they might actually have wings. Why have wings if you cannot fly? Why choose your own bodily form with wings if you had no plans to use them for flight? Remember, Balrogs, like all Maia who heakened to Morgoth clothed themselves in fearsome shapes and forms, such as suited the evil within them.


> their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness *The Silmarillion*


 there is something in this that must be considered. The interesting point to me is that they are 'cloaked in shadow' something which has rather a theme to it if one considers Morgoth and the evil around him. Reading through the thread, Gothmog, Thuringwethil and others have reminded me of my own contemplations long past on the matter. Shadow is the key, for shadow it seems is the cloak in which all evils desires to surround itself.


> yet some things were hidden even from the eyes of Manwë and the servants of Manwë, for where Melkor sat in his dark thought impenetrable shadows lay.


 I considered this quote, not because Melkor sat underground, ordinarilly that would not deflect the gaze of Manwë, but the very fact he has cloaked himself in impenetrable shadow. Ungoliant also, weaved herself in shadow, for she alone consumed the light and from it would spout forth darkness;


> There she sucked up all light that she could find, and spun it forth again in dark nets of strangling gloom, until no light more could come to her abode; and she was famished.


 Yet, shadow is not exlusive to Melkor and his servants, rather a tool of the maiar who used shadow to serve thier own purpose, but it is a tool used to strike fear into the hearts of those who fall foul of it. Consider the Girdle of Melian, an unseen wall of shadow and bewilderment, or even the shadows that surround the Blessed Realm. Morgoth again who hid himself and his host from Tilion, to whom he had sent 'spirits of shadow' against to no avail. So, what does this have to do with Balrogs? Do they not also cloak themselves in shadow, do they not seem to consume light in similar fashion?


> The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. *The Fellowship of the Ring*


 There is a trend among the greatest of Morgoths creatures to consume light, to displace it somehow and to appear darker than depths of night. Wings it would seem are simply an illusion of this ability, the ability itself being able to obscure all light, to become a dreadful silhouette and intangible spectre who decieves the eye through fear and a natural manipulation of ones vision. A Balrog defiles the light, thus perplexing the mind and should it appear to have wings as it unfolds in the darkness, all the better. Wings or no? I think not.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

**Claps**

Impressive. Very, _very_ impressive. Quite a strong argument. However, the fact of the matter is that none of that is truly proof, regardless of how it may appear (to those of certain interpretations). I, however, take that evidence and realize something, something that I've never even dreamed of before. 

_*Tolkien wasn't sure whether or not Balrogs should have wings.*_

Think about it! Throughout everything he ever wrote, Tolkien never _once_ said directly that Balrogs could fly. He never said directly that Balrogs couldn't fly. He left their descriptions open-ended, saying things that they did in a way that would make perfect sense whether or not Balrogs had wings, so that when he decided, he could just go back and add a few words (or not). However, I do not think that Tolkien ever decided. I think that Tolkien died before making up his mind. Even the passage, _*"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."*_ does not say specifically whether or not they had wings. In that form, he could either leave it (saying they didn't have wings) or throw a few words into it that would solidify that the wings were real (like "And the balrog tried to fly, to escape from that mighty sword, but could not."). Although, I would like to add that just because they were left alone doesn't mean that he decided against them. Because, he never went back and said anything to disprove the wings. 

Therefore, I believe that we were _*all*_ wrong. He never decided, so they neither did nor did not have wings (including shadow-wings).

*NOTE:* This was all stated as though it were fact, but that was just because it was easier to write it that way. It is only a _*theory*_, though (I think) a good one.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

While Christopher Tolkien does claim in the preface to the newer editions of The Silmarillion that his father was constantly revising and tweaking the text of The Sil (even while the main focuses and themes remained the same), it may be hasty to assume Tolkien didn't have a clear idea of whether or not Balrog's had wings.
_I_ personally assume that when he pictured the Balrogs in his mind he had a fairly good picture of what he thought they should look like, and for whatever reason he left it ambiguous in his writings. Perhaps that comes from the fact that The Silmarillion was not, as we usually see it, a finished and complete version of the text, but one of many "drafts" and that it was published posthumously. Or perhaps it comes from an intentional ambiguity. Tolkien does very little in the way of definite, and concrete character description, focusing instead on their personality and "essence." Perhaps his intention was to allow us to paint a picture of the characters in our own mind.
Or, perhaps, the ambiguity comes from a feeling in Tolkien's own mind that whatever his vision of the Balrogs was that it came across clearly to his readers. Often when one is writing something those things that are unclear to others, appear crystal clear to the writer, because he knows what his intention and vision is.

The issue stilll remains, however, whether or not Balrogs had wings, and whether or not they could fly. Regardless of that main issue, a question to one of Ancalagon's points: "Why have wings if you cannot fly? Why choose your own bodily form with wings if you had no plans to use them for flight?"
The answer to that could be just this: To have, as the description suggests, wings that spread from wall to wall, or even shadow in the form of wings that does the same, gives one a more imposing figure. It is even more intimidating because of the sheer vastness of it. A Balrog might choose wings that do not give them flight simply in order to frighten their opponents with the enormous shadowy presence extending from their bodies.


----------



## Gothmog

Tolkien *had* made his decision about how the Balrog looked. You can find proof of this in HoME 7: The Treason of Isengard: The Mines Of Moria (ii).



> The original draft of the chapter ends here, and does not recount the coming of the Company into Dimrill Dale. There is a pencilled note written on the manuscript against the description of the Balrog: *'Alter description of Balrog. It seemed to be of man's shape, but its form could not be plainly discerned. It felt larger than it looked*.' After the words 'Through the air it sprang over the fiery fissure' my father added: '*and a great shadow seemed to black out the light*.' And at the end of the text - before he had finished it, for the concluding passage is written around the words - he wrote: 'No - Gandalf breaks the bridge and Balrog falls - but lassoos him.'


 Tolkien had decided that No One was to have a clear view of the Balrog. It is up to each person to make up their own mind as to what can be seen.


----------



## Flame of Udûn

> _Originally posted by Wonko The Sane_
> Regardless of that main issue, a question to one of Ancalagon's points: "Why have wings if you cannot fly? Why choose your own bodily form with wings if you had no plans to use them for flight?"
> The answer to that could be just this: To have, as the description suggests, wings that spread from wall to wall, or even shadow in the form of wings that does the same, gives one a more imposing figure. It is even more intimidating because of the sheer vastness of it. A Balrog might choose wings that do not give them flight simply in order to frighten their opponents with the enormous shadowy presence extending from their bodies.


I quote from the EoA:


> For the 'flightless Balrog' idea to hold, we'd have to assume that the Balrog possessed a huge pair of unusable wings as the result of a deliberate decision. It hardly seems plausible that the Balrog, having decided on the form of a monstrous winged fire-demon, and given the choice of being able to fly or not, would choose 'not'.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

EoA, Encyclopedia of Arda?

I don't take them as a definitive source since they are liable to as much conjecture as we are.

Personally, it seems to me that if a Balrog wanted to "Feel bigger than he was" to paraphrase Tolkien, that wings made of shadow would help to accomplish this.

They didn't NEED to fly, per se, because they were swift enough as it was...but the shadow would help to increase their imposing stature.


----------



## Ancalagon

I agree with Wonks, The Encyclopedia of Arda, which is an excellent resource is no nearer the answers to these questions than any other who has pondered them. In truth, you are more likely to find the closest answers within the forum itself, or among the many essays submitted by 'everyday' Tolkien enthusiasts to the Wiki where everyone can submit their own thoughts and research. An excellent, ever increasing resource


----------



## Wonko The Sane

*Still doesn't quite understand what a Wiki is*

The EoA comment reminds me of something my brother said on another site...It was actually quite a good post. I got banned from the site, but I'm going to ask him to copy and paste it and send it to me so that I can put it up here...


----------



## Flame of Udûn

> _Originally posted by Wonko The Sane _
> *EoA, Encyclopedia of Arda?
> 
> I don't take them as a definitive source since they are liable to as much conjecture as we are.
> 
> Personally, it seems to me that if a Balrog wanted to "Feel bigger than he was" to paraphrase Tolkien, that wings made of shadow would help to accomplish this.
> 
> They didn't NEED to fly, per se, because they were swift enough as it was...but the shadow would help to increase their imposing stature. *


I wasn't quoting the EoA as a source of proof, but only as a statement of the most common objection to that argument, and, in my opinion, quite a reasonable one. Why choose to have wings that were useless, when operational wings would have been no more effort? As for being swift enough without wings, there are many instances when being faster would be desirable, let alone the obvious advantage of being able to fly, as a means of preventing some gravity-related mishaps, which have been brought up previously in this thread.


> _Originally posted by Ancalagon _
> *I agree with Wonks, The Encyclopedia of Arda, which is an excellent resource is no nearer the answers to these questions than any other who has pondered them. In truth, you are more likely to find the closest answers within the forum itself, or among the many essays submitted by 'everyday' Tolkien enthusiasts to the Wiki where everyone can submit their own thoughts and research. An excellent, ever increasing resource *


Most of the EoA's conjectures are taken from these very sources. They don't just make it up themselves.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

As to the EoA's sources, they may take things from the Wiki, but if as Anc suggested the Wiki has more than one different opinion or essay from more than one person, the EoA is obviously being very selective in their choosing of which essays to bring to the table.
That alone is bias enough as those opinions chosen were chosen to express a personal opinion.


----------



## Kahmûl

Balrogs had wings but they couldn't use them or the one in Moria wouldn't have fell.


----------



## Ancalagon

> _Originally posted by Kahmul _
> *Balrogs had wings but they couldn't use them or the one in Moria wouldn't have fell. *


I appreciate the concept, but Kahmul, you will need to produce a statement of evidence to support your theory


----------



## Khôr’nagan

> _Originally posted by Wonko The Sane _
> *...it may be hasty to assume Tolkien didn't have a clear idea of whether or not Balrog's had wings.
> I personally assume that when he pictured the Balrogs in his mind he had a fairly good picture of what he thought they should look like, and for whatever reason he left it ambiguous in his writings...*



Hasty? I consider myself the most hasty of anyone I know. So what's your point? I am an energetic 15 year old who is unbelieveably enthusiastic about Tolkien. And yet, even so I have I strong sense of perception, and it is not easily clouded. On the contrary, my perception of things is quite clear, and almost unaffected by my love and admiration for Tolkien. 

I find that many people's perceptions are clouded in the face of extreme fanaticism regarding people. They think that person is better than they really are, and that the person is always sure of him/herself. The following is the two point of views pertinent to my idea, and thus this post:

*PERSON 1:* I believe Tolkien was very unsure of himself. The fact is, everyone in his position (writer) are unsure of themselves. Why wouldn't they be? They are under extreme pressure to write something great, and are under the scruteny of millions... If not a Billion... People throughout the Earth. I know that I would be unsure of myself.

*PERSON 2:* How can one think that a writer is sure of him/herself? Well, that's simple... They just do. And why not? Surely someone with such genius as J.R.R. Tolkien would be sure of themself. Otherwise, how could they possibly tolerate the stress and pressure of all that scruteny? They couldn't, and so they would not do anything they weren't sure of. 

So, who are these people? *PERSON 1* is me, and *PERSON 2* is also me. However, *PERSON 1* is me from a neutral perspective, and *PERSON 2* is me from a biased perspective. The fact is, everyone is either unsure of themselves or so arrogant that they think they have no reason to be. Tolkien, however, was not arrogant, and was thus unsure of himself. Isn't it enough that he constantly re-wrote each and every thing he did? Isn't it enough that he kept everything ambiguious? Isn't it enough that there are half a dozen versions of all his writings? Of course he was unsure of himself. In fact, he was more unsure of himself than most are. And why is that? Because Tolkien wasn't a writer, he was a linguist. He wrote everything about ME as a way to develop the Elvish Language through the ddevelopment of its mythology. Therefore, he was going where few linguists (or even writers) had gone before: Building an entire World from the bottom up, an entire history from beginning to ending.

He was, therefore, a very skilled writer, or he wouldn't have stood a chance. But he didn't grow up in a writer's childhood, he grew up as a linguist. That's why LotR is so good; because he wasn't a traditional writer.

Taking in all this, the fact is, Tolkien was a pioneer, a person venturing into new and mysterious lands, first ever to do so and maybe the last. So he was under a new and greater kind of pressure than anyone else, even though he had even less of an ability to cope with it.

So let's get down to the matter at hand; Balrogs and there wings (or lack there of, perhaps.) Tolkien, throughout his writings, constantly revised things of all sorts, everything from appearance to concept. He was always rethinking things, always becoming unsure of himself, never quite knowing what he wanted. He went on and on, writing the entirety of ME and LotR. But, throughout all this, he was never able to decide countless things. Among these things were whether or not Balrogs had wings. He had never had a strong thought as to whether or not they should, and had never made up his mind. But then *Chokes; falls over* Tolkien dies, and had yet to make up his mind. Thus, his work of masterpiece was left totally and utterly unfinished. But, even so, his son went on to publish them, and they were yet to have been given the determination of whether or not Balrogs had wings. And so, even today, Tolkien is rolling in his grave as he thinks of how much argument has been given as to whether or not Balrogs had wings. 

You have just witnessed my chain of thoughts as they had occured. Now, as to your post...



> *I personally assume that when he pictured the Balrogs in his mind he had a fairly good picture of what he thought they should look like...*



... I have this to say: (In my opinion), That is not so. I sincerely doubt that he could have possibly left it so ambiguious and not have been unsure. Thet just makes no sense. Tolkien was unsure about almost everything, and was thus very ambiguious about so many things. I believe it to be misguided to think that he was sure of himself but liked being ambiguious in his writing, because that's just foolishness. It is very hard to be sure of Tolkien's mind, but that is most certainly the most unlikely ones I can think of. However, it is easy to become misguided, and thus easy to see it that way. And yet that way makes absolutely no sense, when you (or at least I) really think about it. Hasn't Chris said on countless occasions that his father was unsure of himself? Tolkien always mumbled when he gave lectures. Tolkien had not wanted to read aloud one of his stories because he was _unsure of himself_. Tolkien had almost rejected Adunaic as having been kept by Numenoreans when they went to Numenor. Tolkien constantly changed the base concepts behind names, events, etc., and that led to significant changes in the timeline. Tolkien was always unsure of himself, and of his work. He died unsure of himself. You can't say that isn't at least a little likely. I have written this post so extensively because you seem to have all ignored the last one, and wrote it off as 'hasty.' Well, I think your denial was very 'hasty,' and that you should slow down and think about it.


----------



## Gothmog

An excellent post Khor’nagan.

Since Tolkien as you have so eloquently pointed out was not happy with any description of the Balrog that he could come up with he made a decision that put an end to the problem. In my last post I included a quote that showed that JRRT had decided to Not give a clear view of the Balrog in Moria.

Doing this removed the need for him to worry if he should include wings in the description. I still doubt that Tolkien thought of the Balrog as having wings. In his early writing on the Fall of Gondolin he had Glorfindel fighting with a Balrog high up a mountain. I find this quote from “The Fall of Gondolin” in The Book of Lost Tales II very suggestive that he thought of them with out wings.


> Already the half had passed the perilous way and the falls of Thorn Sir, *when that Balrog that was with the rearward foe leapt with great might on certain lofty rocks that stood into the path on the left side upon the lip of the chasm, and thence with a leap of fury he was past Glorfindel's men* and among the women and the sick in front, lashing with his whip of flame.


 Jumping from rock to rock just to get past those on the path seems to be a strange move for a creature possessed of wings. Even though I agree with you about JRRT’s constant revision of the stories and descriptions I am of the opinion that in the case of the Balrog he left the description vague not to allow for later changes but as a means whereby it could be made more terrifying because it could not be clearly seen.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Interesting.....

Well, to tell the truth... I'm beginning to doubt if Balrogs had wings. The evidence I myself am stirring up is proof to the contrary of them having wings. However, in the face of this great doubt, one thing holds true to the last...

I think Balarogs are so much cooler with wings. I can't imagine the Balrog in LotR without them, because they are just so fricken cool with them.

So, that's about it. I think they are cooler with them, but I'm not sure if they have them anymore... An interesting situation...


----------



## Thuringwethil

Peace lasted too long? Sounds like a job for Lady of the Secret Shadow.. 



> _by Khôr’nagan _
> *I think Balarogs are so much cooler with wings. I can't imagine the Balrog in LotR without them, because they are just so fricken cool with them.
> 
> So, that's about it. I think they are cooler with them, but I'm not sure if they have them anymore... An interesting situation... *



Well, my hypothesis offers balrog to have wings at will. Not a pair it can fly with, but definetly one to intimidate and look cool. (Except how can a balrog look cool, it's a fire demon..?  Then again, if one describes them "hot" that could be misunderstood..) I agree that wings look stylish, but I prefer "shadowy" ones over "real". Shadow wings _can_ be stretched hundreds of feets wide, and they still don't get stuck in corridors. Variable size and style, what more could a balrog hope?


----------



## Lantarion

I agree totally with Thuringwethil on her view of Balrog wings being semi-corporeal. 
And I certainly agree with Khôr, Balrogs just wouldn't be the same as just huge lumps of shadow and flame; in fact, how can a creature/being/spirit which is composed solely of ethereal, inconsistant characteristics NOT have the appearance of having wings? All that shadowy stuff flying around, what does it have if not "wings"? 
But I also think that what we interpret as 'cool', the people who are witness to a Balrog perceive as 'terrifying, horrific and awe-inspiringly frightening'. It's pretty clear that Tolkien uses the term 'wings' here to connote evil and a menacing, enormous force of pure fear (it's interesting, in fact, that Legolas is undaunted in the Paths of the Dead, but trembles at the rumour and sight of a Balrog); so perhaps he meant for the Balrog itself to realize that by twisting its essense into two wing-like forms it arouses even more fear in its enemies.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Lantarion, for one thing, the spirits inhabiting the Paths of the Dead are not evil, only wretched, and they cannot do any physical harm to anything. And, what powers of fear it does have does not effect Elves, and thus Elves do not fear them. Balrogs are a totally different thing and situation. Elvish history is crammed full of stories where Balrogs kill great Elven Kings and Lords. Balrogs are Maiar, while things like Nazgul and the Dead men of Dunharrow are just the spirits of men. Thus, the Elves are afraid of neither the Nazgul nor the Dead Men, though the Nazgul most suredly can do physical harm. But the mere stories of the brutal massacres brought about by the Balrogs were so numerous that even a whisper that a Balrog might still be in Middle-Earth incites great fear. Seeing one with your own eyes is like looking back into the Elder Days, of Morgoth's Dominion. The Balrogs, I imagine, were pictured in at least one painting, and their image is most definitely known. A Balrog can kill a hundred men with relative ease. A Balrog could even kill ten Elvish Warriors, though with great difficulty. To face a Balrog is to face death itself. It is only the greatest of Elves and Men that could possibly stand against a Balrog and survive. Not even Gandalf, a Maia, wielding the legendary sword Glamdring, could survive against a Balrog. Not until the end of a ten-day battle did Gandalf succeed, but he himself was also slain. Therefore, you can imagine the immense power of a person who could fight one-on-one with a Balrog, let alone succeed. Granted, Gandalf was, unlike most Maiar, bound to a corporeal body, and was thus diminished in the strength that he could put forth in battle. When he was sent back, of course, he was like other Maiar, and he was not nearly so limited by his body. So, my point is, Legolas knew the extreme power wielded by the Balrog, and even Celeborn shuddered and became fearful and furious. No Elf could, in his right mind, stand unflinching and unafraid of a Balrog when standing right in front of one. 

But anyway, I know that Balrogs would also look cool with shadow wings, but what I meant by _"I can't imagine the Balrog in LotR without them,"_ I meant without physical wings enveloped in flame shadow, the way it appeared in the movie. I can also imagine it flying and all that, and I really love the way I see it in my mind.


----------



## Inderjit S

> Doing this removed the need for him to worry if he should include wings in the description. I still doubt that Tolkien thought of the Balrog as having wings. In his early writing on the Fall of Gondolin he had Glorfindel fighting with a Balrog high up a mountain. I find this quote from “The Fall of Gondolin” in The Book of Lost Tales II very suggestive that he thought of them with out wings.



The concept of the Balrogs in the Lost Tales legendarium and LoTR are vastly different. In the Lost Tales legend, they were not Maia. There were vast hordes of them that existed then:



> Melko sent a host of Balrogs after them...


 _Gilfanon's Tale: The Travail of the Noldoli; BoLT 1_ 



> Balrog GL defines Balrog as 'a kind of fire-demon; crea-
> tures and servants of Melko'. With the article the form
> is i 'Malrog, plural i 'Malraugin. Separate entries give
> bal 'anguish' (original initial consonant mb-), balc
> 'cruel'; and graug 'demon'


 _Appendix; BoLT 1_ 

In fact in _Last Writings_ (HoME 12) Tolkien says the battle with Glorfindel and the Balrog needed revision. He never says what this 'revision' encompassed.

Just like to diverge here a bit. In the _Fall of Gondolin_ again there are hordes of Balrogs. Not that this is out of context with LoTR. In fact hosts of Balrogs are seen in pre-LoTR workings on the Silmarillion (_Quenta Noldorwina, HoME 4)_ and post-LoTR Silmarillion writings. (_Annals of Aman_, HoME 10.) It is in the _Annals of Aman_ that he concludes that no more then seven existed and the idea that they were Maia first emerges. These were written in the later 40's and early 1950's some 8-10 years after the chapter/s concerning the Balrog of Khazad-dum was written. The idea of a Balrog appearing in Khazad-dum first appears in draft writings to the scenes in Moria (HoME 6.) When Tolkien is actually writing the scenes he seems rather confused as to what exactly Balrogs are. It is once referred to as coming from Mordor, and once Legolas claims that Balrog/S are coming, implying great numbers. It is also stated that the Balrog may have come from Mordor.

IMO, Balrogs could fly, consider this passage from LQ II (HoME 10)



> Far beneath the halls of Angband... the Balrogs lurked still.... Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.



Though Voronwe's words to Tuor 
"as yet no servant of the Enemy has dared to fly into the high airs"
may contradict this.


----------



## Lantarion

Ah ok.. So your view differs quite a lot from mine. 
There were some strange points in that last post of yours though:


> Elvish history is crammed full of stories where Balrogs kill great Elven Kings and Lords.


As far as I recall, only a small handful of Elven Kings or Lords are killed by Balrogs. Ecthelion, Fëanor and Fingon are the ones I remember off the top of my head; there aren't many others. Not much to cram history with, I'd say. 


> But the mere stories of the brutal massacres brought about by the Balrogs were so numerous that even a whisper that a Balrog might still be in Middle-Earth incites great fear.


How numerous, would you say? Morgoth certainly implemented them in most of the Wars of Beleriand. Are you referring to them, or some other 'numerous' massacres?


> The Balrogs, I imagine, were pictured in at least one painting, and their image is most definitely known. A Balrog can kill a hundred men with relative ease. A Balrog could even kill ten Elvish Warriors, though with great difficulty.


Where are you getting these statistics? Tolkien extremely rarely speaks of painting of any kind in his works, and never depicting any servant of Morgoth. I agree that the 'image' of a Balrog was known throughout Beleriand in the First Age, but hardly due to any visual depictions of them; heresay and reports from the Wars of Beleriand seem more likely. And sorry, but did you just conjure up the numbers "a hundred men" and "ten Elvish Warriors"? Apart from being set in illogical order in that sentence, I fail to see any tangible evidense for either claim.

Now I do see your point about Legolas not fearing the ghosts of Men; I was merely pointing out the differing degrees of fear and their agents in Middle-earth, and I found in interesting that something which terrifies Men holds little power over an Elf, and yet a Balrog is a universal fear which everybody is terrified of.


----------



## Lúthien Séregon

Well, I've just read through all 28 pages of this debate, and although there are some good arguments against Balrogs having wings, I still think that they did have wings ( or at least, they could fly ), but on the grounds of something that hasn't been addressed yet.

From "The Great River", pg. 504:




> "I cannot," said Gimli. "But I am glad that the shadow came no nearer. I liked it not at all. Too much it reminded me of the shadow in Moria - the shadow of the Balrog," he ended in a whisper.
> "It was not a Balrog," said Frodo, still shivering with the chill that had come upon him. "It was something colder. I think it was -"



So while the shadow was a Nazgul riding upon a winged beast, if Balrogs couldn't fly, why would Gimli have any reason to even suspect or think of the possibility of it being a Balrog?


----------



## Khôr’nagan

That's easy. The fear imposed upon Gimli by the Balrog was similar to the fear imposed upon him by the Nazgul. I too think that Balrogs had wings, but your argument is not a convincing one.

There is very easily absolutely no association with wings in that quote. As both the Nazgul and the Balrog used fear as weapons, and that Frodo was predisposed to the fear invoked by the Nazgul as a result of him carrying the Ring, the feeling of the Balrog and the Nazgul would undoubtedly be nearly identical.

Lantarion, by the massacres and killings I was indeed referring to the many battles in which the Balrogs were sent forth. At least a dozen times is more than enough for something such as a Balrog to be considered numerous. To my current recolection, Glorfindel, Feanor, Ecthelion, and Fingon were all victims of Balrogs. Not to mention Durin VI and another of the Dwarven Kings. As with Battles, six great Lords killed by Balrogs are more than numerous enough. I know that I neglected to mention Dwarves, but I do so now. In the Wars of Beleriand, Balrogs consistantly killed and killed and killed, racking up at least into the hundreds of victims in total of just Men. Balrogs have also slaughtered Elves, while fighting at least two or three at a time. With Men, the soldiers were less trained and far less skilled than the Elves, and they wewre typically easy targets for the Balrogs, especially when they were panicked. Elven warriors, far better trained and fierce in battle, would stand a far better chance than Men. But even then, one sweep of a Balrog's Fire-sword would take out at least two or three Elves when in such close combat, and the same for Men. In extended battle between Elves and Men with Balrogs, the Balrogs would just keep on racking up the kills with sweep after sweep of their swords, not to mention the damage inflicted by their whips. Though not based in written words, common sense was my support for the 'statistics.' For though they did not fight 10 Elves at once and 100 Men at once, the Balrogs still would have at least so many kills after a battle. Perhaps not a hundred Men, but certainly 30. There were thousands of Elves and Men in those battles, and with Balrogs on the front lines of the enemy, it would be more than easy to get so many kills. I am speaking totals here. And, with such destruction caused by the Balrogs, each and every battle was indeed a massacre.


----------



## Gothmog

> So while the shadow was a Nazgul riding upon a winged beast, if Balrogs couldn't fly, why would Gimli have any reason to even suspect or think of the possibility of it being a Balrog?


 An interesting question. To expand somewhat upon the post of Khôr’nagan. First let us look at just how well Gimli Son of Glóin would know a Balrog.

According to the Appendices Gimli was born Third age 2879. The Balrog appeared in Khazad-dûm in Third Age 1980 and kills Durin VI. The following year it kills Náin I and the Dwarves flee Moria. However, it is not known at this time that it is a Balrog that has awakened. It is spoken of only as "Durin's Bane".

So between the last time that Durin's Bane was seen by any Dwarves and the birth of Gimli there is some 898 years. When Gimli saw the shadow he only knew that it was "Durin's Bane". It was Legolas the Elf that recognised it as a Balrog. As for any evidence that the Balrog could fly, as far as Gimli was concerned there was none. The Balrog Jumped one fissure and then fell into the chasm when the bridge broke.

Before being seen by the fellowship in Moria, the last time the Balrog was seen and known to be such was well over 6000 years before when it fled the breaking of Thangorodrim. so I think that it is unlikely that Gimli had much actual knowledge of Balrogs and would not know if Balrogs were able to fly or not.

As for why he would have reason to think of the Balrog when he felt the Nazgúl fly overhead? Let' s look at this.

The Balrog.


> And in Utumno he gathered his demons about him, those spirits who first adhered to him in the days of his splendour, and became most like him in his corruption: their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, *and terror went before them*: they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named in Middle-earth in later days.


 Quenta Silmarillion: Chapter 3.

The Nazgúl.


> Yet this weakness they had for Sauron's present purpose: *so great was the terror that went with them* (even invisible and unclad) that their coming forth might soon be perceived and their mission be guessed by the Wise.


Unfinished Tales: The Hunt for the Ring.

So both the Balrogs and the Nazgûl had one thing in common. Terror went before them. It was this feeling of terror that caused Gimli to compare the two and think that they were the same.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Indeed, very great point, Gothmog. Funny thing, I was reading that exact passage the other day...

Anyway, that was indeed my evidence for my claim, though I had not taken the time to look it up and post it. Terror went before each of them, and that is the only reason that Gimli compared them.


----------



## Beorn

*Wings or No? (Part II)*

Hey, look...the "Wings or No" thread is hidden! I wonder where it went. Hrm...Oh well...I'm going to repost it to see if we come to the same general conclusions. Rather than making everyone go looking around, I *will* post *some* of the quotes from the thread:



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



http://greenbooks.theonering.net/guest/files/080101.html

http://tolkien.cro.net/balrogs/fly.html



> Far beneath the halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, the Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their lord. Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.


Source: Morgoth's Ring: Later Quenta Silmarillion


----------



## Kahmûl

Yeh I think that Balrogs had wings as it say's in the quotes but I don't think that they were able to use them or the Balrog in Moria wouldn't have fell.


----------



## BlackCaptain

> Far beneath the halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, the Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their lord. Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.



That's the quote that gets me... You can't help but wonder if it means:

And they passed with the speed of wings

or:

They passed speedily by way of the wing.

I myself think that Tolkien never made any CLEAR distinction that Balrog's had wings. It was just in similie-like refferences that the 'Wings' appeard, or at least the 'wings' could be taken as literal or as similies. I choose similies because he would have made it clear, like he made it clear Dragons took flight with wings (later dragon's under Ancalagon anyways), that Balrog's could fly.


----------



## Ithrynluin

I'd also like to delve into the following quote:



> _The Silmarillion: Of the Flight of the Noldor_
> But Ungoliant had grown great, and he less by the power that had gone out of him; and she rose against him, and her cloud closed about him, and she enmeshed him in a web of clinging thongs to strangle him. Then Morgoth sent forth a terrible cry, that echoed in the mountains. Therefore that region was called Lammoth; for the echoes of his voice dwelt there ever after, so that any who cried aloud in that land awoke them, and all the waste between the hills and the sea was filled with a clamour as of voices in anguish. The cry of Morgoth in that hour was the greatest and most dreadful that was ever heard in the northern world; the mountains shook, and the earth trembled, and rocks were riven asunder. Deep in forgotten places that cry was heard. Far beneath the ruined halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their Lord; [color=sky blue]and now swiftly they arose, and passing over Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire[/color]. With their whips of flame they smote asunder the webs of Ungoliant, and she quailed, and turned to flight, belching black vapours to cover her;



[color=sky blue]*1.[/color]*

Firstly, one walks or runs through a land, not over it. Wingless Balrogs would be _'passing *through* Hithlum'_, not over it.

Likewise, one FLIES over a land. Winged Balrogs would be _'passing *over* Hithlum'_, as the quote says.

There is one instance where Tolkien uses 'pass over' in reference to wingless creatures:



> _Of the Ruin of Beleriand and the Fall of Fingolfin_
> Now news came to Hithlum that Dorthonion was lost and the sons of Finarfin overthrown, and that the sons of Fëanor were driven from their lands. Then Fingolfin beheld (as it seemed to him) the utter ruin of the Noldor, and the defeat beyond redress of all their houses; and filled with wrath and despair he mounted upon Rochallor his great horse and rode forth alone, and none might restrain him. *He passed over Dor-nu-Fauglith like a wind amid the dust*, and all that beheld his onset fled in amaze, thinking that Oromë himself was come: for a great madness of rage was upon him, so that his eyes shone like the eyes of the Valar. Thus he came alone to Angband's gates, and he sounded his horn, and smote once more upon the brazen doors, and challenged Morgoth to come forth to single combat. And Morgoth came.



But this is just the sole exception that confirms the rule.  (And who's to say that Rochallor wasn't winged? )

The Balrogs were able to traverse the distance of cca 330 to 355 miles.* Keep in mind that this would be the distance 'as the crow flies' not 'as the wolf walks', as Tolkien was so fond of saying. So this is the estimation for aerial creatures. The distance for creatures who go on foot would be considerably greater (I am guessing over 400 miles and more).

Wingless Balrogs would have to cross mountains twice. First, to get _into_ Hithlum they would have to cross the Ered Wethrin (Mountains of Shadow), and then to get _out_ of it they'd have to pass over the Ered Lómin (the Echoing Mountains). I don't think there's any information on how high these mountains soared, but I'm thinking they were no picnic to trudge over.

*2.*

Now look at the yellow coloured quote. Looks like Ungoliant was quickly overpowering Morgoth and the threat of being strangled was immediate. The Balrogs would have to cover this immense distance in the blink of an eye almost, if they wanted to deliver their master from annihilation. Even if they were able to run really *really* fast, Ungoliant would have made short work of Morgoth by then. Frankly, I cannot see how it would be possible for Morgoth to be saved if the Valarukar were wingless.

In the Lord of the Rings (Chapter _Minas Tirith_), Gandalf is said to have travelled 'at terrible speed' upon Shadowfax. There is little doubt that Shadowfax, the greatest of the mearas, was the swiftest creature in Middle Earth at the time (barring aerial beings).

Now Miss Fonstad in her Atlas makes estimations on how fast the Fellowship had been travelling at each stage of their journey. She notes that Gandalf, when travelling 'at terrible speed' upon Shadowfax, covered the distance of 140 miles in 7 hours, which makes for 20 miles per hour. 

Of course, we are talking about Maiar here, and possibly they were faster than even Shadowfax. But even they in their incarnate forms had limitations imposed upon them and were not exempt from the laws of physics. It is simple - they can't have covered the enormous distance in such a short time - it would be impossible.

*I did the measuring manually based on Karen Wynn Fonstad's _The Atlas of Middle-Earth_, pages 15-16. I measured from Lammoth to Angband/Thangorodrim.

Now what say you, my wingless friends? *pokes Gothmog*


----------



## BlackCaptain

Who's to say that Ungoilantë would have immediately destroyed Melkor? We know that Melkor tortures many people into finaly getting what he wants, why not another extremely powerful Ainu of darkness? The Balrogs could have had as much time as a year if they wanted to to get to Lammoth. And who's then to say that Ungoilantë would stop torturing him after a year!? Sure, Ungoilantë only wanted the Silmarills at that point, but I'm sure she wanted to make Morgoth desperately pay for the Sins he commited against her! 

As to your first point, it's just an expression used as writing... Running over the land would still be goingn over it! I'm over the floor right now!


----------



## Ithrynluin

> Who's to say that Ungoilantë would have immediately destroyed Melkor?



The quote. Sense the urgency.



> We know that Melkor tortures many people into finaly getting what he wants, why not another extremely powerful Ainu of darkness?



Ungoliant desired only to quench her thirst (or rather, hunger). She could have cared less for plans of world domination or any valuable knowledge whatsover. Her insatiable and recurring desire drove her to consume any light in her path.



> I'm sure she wanted to make Morgoth desperately pay for the Sins he commited against her!



*?*



> As to your first point, it's just an expression used as writing... Running over the land would still be goingn over it! I'm over the floor right now!



The meaning of this phrase is still more commonly used with flying than with going on foot.


----------



## BlackCaptain

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure she wanted to make Morgoth desperately pay for the Sins he commited against her!
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> ?



Just meaning that Ungoilante would want Melkor to suffer for not giving her the Silmarills

As for the urgency... I sense it, but strangling Melkor very well could have been drawn out for a very long time. How much torture would it be to slowly be running out of oxygen for a very long period of time?





> Ungoliant desired only to quench her thirst (or rather, hunger). She could have cared less for plans of world domination or any valuable knowledge whatsover. Her insatiable and recurring desire drove her to consume any light in her path.



Just as Morgoth only cared about taking over Arda? But malice (as is present in all beings of evil) could have easily drawn Ungoilant away from her soul purpose. But none the less you do make a good point.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Ungoliant's impulses and 'drives' certainly didn't seem to allow her time for 'simple pleasures' such as tormenting Morgoth for a year before she afforded herself the treat that were the Silmarilli. She is almost devoid of any 'human' characteristics - she acts like a beast. Her lust for the Silmarils, the very artifact that would have been the most appealing to her, was enormous. She had consumed all of the jewels Morgoth stole from Formenos, one by one. Only the Silmarils remained and her hunger had to be quenched in that very moment. To wait as long as a year, as you suggest, seems to me extremely unreasonable to assume.


----------



## BlackCaptain

You make it sound like Ungoilant is just another animal from todays world.

Keep in mind she IS Ainu, only in the form of a beast who needs these things. 

As for the 1 year thing... It surely wouldn't take the Balrogs one year to reach Lammoth. That was just a worse case scinario type thing. I would imagine maybe about a month or two for the Balrogs to get there, just enough time for Ungoiliant to have tortured Morgoth. Remember, these Ainur are capable of more physical abuse than the Children of Ainur. At least i think...


----------



## Ithrynluin

> You make it sound like Ungoilant is just another animal from todays world.



Do you remember how she ended? Like an animal who has gone mad on account of failing to fulfill her unearthly hunger.



> _The Silmarillion: Of the Flight of the Noldor_
> Of the fate of Ungoliant no tale tells. Yet some have said that she ended long ago, when in her uttermost famine she devoured herself at last.



Her thirst is insatiable and drives her insane. At times, she almost seems incapable of thought and reasoning. Was it she who devised the devious plan to destroy the Two Trees? Nay, Melko was the mastermind behind it, he simply lured her into cooperation by promising her all the light she will be given to satisfy her. That is all she desired - satisfaction. It was in her very nature. Whenever there was a prospect of immediate satisfaction nearby, she would have seized it right there, right then.



> Keep in mind she IS Ainu



Show me proof.



> As for the 1 year thing... It surely wouldn't take the Balrogs one year to reach Lammoth. That was just a worse case scinario type thing. I would imagine maybe about a month or two for the Balrogs to get there, just enough time for Ungoiliant to have tortured Morgoth. Remember, these Ainur are capable of more physical abuse than the Children of Ainur. At least i think...



Well I disagree it took that long.

_'The cry of Morgoth in that hour was the greatest and most dreadful that was ever heard in the northern world; the mountains shook, and the earth trembled, and rocks were riven asunder. Deep in forgotten places that cry was heard.'_

I think the Balrogs acted instantaneously and followed the tremors of the Earth (which increased in magnitude as the Balrogs drew closer to Morgoth) to find their masters.


----------



## Beorn

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



According to the above quote, does the Balrog have wings? It doesn't say. It says that it has a shadow. It's shadow is _like_ wings. There is no reference to wings on the Balrog, so one can't be sure...until you read the following:



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



According to the above quote, does the Balrog have wings? Yes. It refers to them. It says the wings did something. The wings had to exist for them to do something. The wings could not possibly be the shadow mentioned. The shadow was as wings are. If it said the shadow was wings, _then_ there would be a debate.

It shows clear as day[/b] that there were wings belonging to the Balrog. It does not show that the shadow described as wings is in any way related to the wings that spread from wall to wall, save in the fact that their posessor is one and the same Balrog.



> The boy's shadow grew like a weed as the sun went down





> The weed became brown and ugly



Does that mean the shadow was brown and ugly? NO!!!




BC: I should remind you that it is undecided what Ungoliant is .


----------



## Aulë

> _LotR Appendix A III_
> It came to pass that in the middle of the Third Age Durin was again its king, being the sixth of that name. The power of Sauron, servant of Morgoth, was then again growing in the world, though the Shadow in the Forest that looked towards Moria was not yet known for what it was. All evil things were stirring. The Dwarves delved deep at that time, seeking beneath Barazinbar for _mithril_, the metal beyond price that was becoming yearly ever harder to win. *Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth.* Durin was slain by it, and the year after Náin I, his son; and then the glory of Moria passed, and its people were destroyed or fled far away.



I suppose it could be interpreted as 'fleeing' though.


----------



## BlackCaptain

> _Originally posted by ithrynluin _
> *Do you remember how she ended? Like an animal who has gone mad on account of failing to fulfill her unearthly hunger.
> 
> 
> 
> Her thirst is insatiable and drives her insane. At times, she almost seems incapable of thought and reasoning. Was it she who devised the devious plan to destroy the Two Trees? Nay, Melko was the mastermind behind it, he simply lured her into cooperation by promising her all the light she will be given to satisfy her. That is all she desired - satisfaction. It was in her very nature. Whenever there was a prospect of immediate satisfaction nearby, she would have seized it right there, right then.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me proof.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I disagree it took that long.
> 
> 'The cry of Morgoth in that hour was the greatest and most dreadful that was ever heard in the northern world; the mountains shook, and the earth trembled, and rocks were riven asunder. Deep in forgotten places that cry was heard.'
> 
> I think the Balrogs acted instantaneously and followed the tremors of the Earth (which increased in magnitude as the Balrogs drew closer to Morgoth) to find their masters. *



Good first point, but again (in my opinion) that's because when Ainu take on physical bodies they inherit the traits of the things they embodie... Olorin was much more breakable in the form of Gandalf than in the form of a Maia. I could be wrong here...

Touche on the second point, although again it sounds llike your making her out to be some mindless creature with no free will. Melkor's want to be lord of Arda drove him so endlessly to war with the Elves, and look at all the malicious deeds he did in between. Although I do see where you're coming from, don't get me wrong.

What else could she be? She descended from somewhere unknown to the Elved didnt she? The only answer could be the void here. She can't be another enigma, Tolkien would have made that clear (although I doubt he'd include two enigmas in his whole story). Honestly, her being a Maiar is the best answer we could think of. What else could she be? Surely not just another large spider... She wouldn't be capable of devouring the light of Arda if she was.

However long it took isn't important here... If it was Tolkien would have made it clear, much like I think he would have made crystal clear to us readers if Balrogs had wings or not


----------



## Thuringwethil

I assume the question means "actual" flesh-bone-sinew-wings, so I voted for "wingless". However I believe valaraukar can have wings made of shadow (un-light) any time they want.

So why not physical wings? Because they're not mentioned (clearly, that is). It's not directly said that valaraukar fly; descriptions seem to be figurative. "Flying" is also a metaphor of great ground-bound speed (besides very often Tolkien uses it meaning "fleeing"). I think they were supernaturally fast runners, which would fit the descriptions of Dagor Bragollach and Lammoth incident. With 50 mph Morgoth would have maybe around 7 hours to fight Ungoliant before valaraukar arrived. Brief enough timespan in this weight-class.

Contrary, valaraukar are described to leap and rush in situations when flying and gliding would suit better, if one had wings. And then there's the Number One Protocol To Kill A Balrog: drop it from high place. And winged dragons seem to be the first considerable Dark Side "air force", which indicates valaraukar didn't fly.

And the (as far as I know) only actual sentence about "wings", at the Khazad-Dum bridge.. If those wings are physical, they're (spanning some 100 feet) enormous, actually insane, compared to around 14 feet tall body of the demon.

And finally, my favourite point: Durin's Bane is described as "man-shaped". Men do not have wings. There is no "what they first saw as a shadow, was actually a pair of huge wings" when the balrog closes and they see it more clearly (burning "hair" or whaddyacallit, and weapons). It's the shadow that transformes into wings. They are wings, yep, but not flesh and bone, and not "flyable".

Not The Truth (tm), but an opinion/hypothesis. That's how I see it with the evidence I've read. And I just happen to like the idea of wingless balrog. You see, when I'm talking about running, I don't mean jogging and huff-puff; I mean something that modern human could first mistake as a burning fuel-truck in full race. That's a "tempest of fire" when it hits. Let alone if there are several of them. (Can't blame Ungoliant for running..  )


----------



## DGoeij

As much better described by Thuringwethil, I just can't picture the Balrogs as creatures with actual wings, going flap flap to cover distances.

They never seem to circle their enemies while in the air, like the Nazgul on their winged steeds tend to do. I'm not much of a loremaster on the works of J.R.R., but picturing the balrogs as creatures with wings is like mentally trying to put a square peg into a round hole.


----------



## Arvedui

On 'flying':


> 'Fly, you fools!' he (Gandalf) cried, and was gone


 _From LotR, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Bridge of Khazad-dûm._ 
I don't think that Gandalf intended that the rest of the Fellowship should take use of their wings, did he?
Thuringwethil has some very good points, especially about the use of the word 'fly', and also on How to Kill a Balrog.

Balrogs do not have wings.
*ducks*


----------



## Beorn

> _Originally posted by Arvedui _
> *On 'flying':
> From LotR, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Bridge of Khazad-dûm.
> I don't think that Gandalf intended that the rest of the Fellowship should take use of their wings, did he?
> Thuringwethil has some very good points, especially about the use of the word 'fly', and also on How to Kill a Balrog.
> 
> Balrogs do not have wings.
> *ducks* *



*throws a rotten vegetable at you*

Your quote doesn't explicitly refer to wings, and give an action to them. "_ts wings were spread from wall to wall" certainly says that there were wings, and they were the subject of that phrase.


Additionally...



It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height,

Click to expand...

When many animals, or even people go to strike, they move forward, and fan themselves out, to become larger. Snakes do. So do Blowfish. Peacocks have their tails to a) impress females and b) appear bigger so they can scare off enemies. Now, wouldn't the menace of coming forward and appearing larger go hand in hand with a large set of wings, spread fully, over your head? Suddenly it's a lot bigger, and scarier.

As to the 14ft tall Balrog thing. I'm going to do some measurements on my parakeet. Her 10" wingspan is a lot larger than her 2" stature. That's 5:1. Most birds actually have a wingspan much larger compared to their head-to-tail length and their standing height (parakeets aren't exactly the best ones to make comparisons with, but she didn't mind). If we were to apply the same to a Balrog, it's wings would be 70-140 feet wide. That fits the hall._


----------



## Thuringwethil

> _Originally posted by Beorn _
> "Its wings were spread from wall to wall" certainly says that there were wings, and they were the subject of that phrase.



Yes, but my argument is that they're wings of shadow. They look like wings and move like wings. They just aren't flesh.



> Now, wouldn't the menace of coming forward and appearing larger go hand in hand with a large set of wings, spread fully, over your head? Suddenly it's a lot bigger, and scarier.



It goes hand in hand with my "shadow theory" too. Perfect device of intimidation, without nuisance of dragging physical wings through tunnels. See following..



> As to the 14ft tall Balrog thing. I'm going to do some measurements on my parakeet. Her 10" wingspan is a lot larger than her 2" stature. That's 5:1.



Well, I wasn't actually talking about ratio itself, but those 100 feet wings poor balrog should live with. But as far as ratio goes, smaller creatures can handle bigger things compared to their size, plus balrog is shaped as a man, not as a bird. 70 to 140 feet wings fit the hall, but how do you squeeze them into the Chamber of Mazarbul? And if Durin's Bane had these gigantic flappers, why Tolkien didn't mention anything about them in the first place, but described the creature as "man-shaped"? Men do not have wings.



> ...does the Balrog have wings? Yes. It refers to them. It says the wings did something. The wings had to exist for them to do something.



Of course. It's just that the wings were not made of flesh. One could say "it projected a hologram that looked like wings" and continue talking about wings and mean the hologram, because the hologram is wings and the wings are a hologram. Remember that balrog's shadow isn't cast by light but is part of its body.



> The wings could not possibly be the shadow mentioned.



Why not? Is it denied somewhere?



> If it said the shadow was wings, then there would be a debate.



But it said. Shadow took the shape of wings. Like I said, we are not talking about ordinary shadows here, but something that resembles smoke, and is under total control of the balrog. If it wants a cloak, it will make it. If it wants wings, it will make them. If it wants big fluffy slippers, it will show up in Bakshi animation.. 



> It shows clear as day that there were wings belonging to the Balrog.



Correct. The material of the wings is the question.



> It does not show that the shadow described as wings is in any way related to the wings that spread from wall to wall



It doesn't?

Take an artist who doesn't know a squat about balrogs, never heard the name. Read to her/him the first sentences describing balrog. Let her/him make a picture. Read next piece. Another picture. Proceed. When the controversial "wall to wall" piece comes, I can imagine two possible options: 1) S/he makes a picture of shadow wings. 2) S/he asks where the hell those wings came from, because there was no mention about them before. I think #1 is more likely.

Sorry, too tired to edit, let alone continue. And again, just my picture about things, nothing serious..


----------



## Starflower

I found a lovely little reference to this debate on the Tolkien Society website www.tolkiensociety.com :




> Balrogs dream of wings. Balrogs pose in front of the mirror with wings. Alone in the night, wrapped in their wings of shadow, Balrogs remember wings. But no Balrog this side of the walls of Arda has ever been able to fly ...



I thought it was very cute


----------



## Red Istar

I'm undecided.... some quotes do indeed seem to support the theory of wings and flying, but if the Balrog could fly why did it just allow itself to fall into the chasm?  So I won't vote just yet.


----------



## Ithrynluin

One can easily dismiss _'the Number One Protocol To Kill A Balrog: drop it from high place'_, as Thuringwethil calls it, by saying that the Balrogs (both the one that fought Glorfindel and the one who fought Gandalf) were too exhausted from the confrontation to actually use wings as a means of salvation from ruin. Imagine a bird that spends the bulk of its strength fleeing (flying? ) from a vicious and fierce predator. Would you say it is impossible for this bird to plunge down from the sky because its energy was depleted? 

Gandalf seemed totally worn out when the Balrog took him by surprise and countered his spell. Why neglect the possibility that they both could have been shorn of energy after their final confrontation? The Balrog had just enough power for a final stroke with its whip, dragging Gandalf along into the abyss, and Gandalf had just strength enough to hold on to the edge of the bridge for a short while and utter his final words - "Use wings, you fools!" Ooops - that's "Fly, you fools."


----------



## Red Istar

good points, oh, erm... let's see... can't spell the name... *copies and pastes* ithrynluin.  The Balrog could have been just as exhausted as Gandalf was from their vying at the door.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by Red Istar _
> *good points, oh, erm... let's see... can't spell the name... *copies and pastes* ithrynluin.  The Balrog could have been just as exhausted as Gandalf was from their vying at the door.  *



Yes, Gandalf was rather helpless there for a moment, and the Balrog might have been weakened also (though I think that it was Gandalf who was at a disadvantage at that moment, because it seems he did not expect the counterspell). That could easily have been the case with both of them when they finally clashed on the bridge. All their strength was spent in that moment.

And don't worry about misspelling my name - lots of people do it. Some use shorter versions like 'ithy', 'ithryn', 'ith' or even 'itchy'.


----------



## Thuringwethil

> _Originally posted by ithrynluin _
> One can easily dismiss _'the Number One Protocol To Kill A Balrog: drop it from high place'_, as Thuringwethil calls it, by saying that the Balrogs were too exhausted from the confrontation (...)



Easily? Pardon me, but I don't think so. Think gliding. It is very energy-saving way to use wings. Even tired and wounded birds can glide most of the time. And the bigger the better; and balrog is supposed to have 100ft wings here.. Of course, if the wings were useless, they wouldn't save a falling balrog. But then again, what would a maia do with useless wings? They chose their form, after all. Or if they were crippled during fight, where's the text describing this act?

And about the exhaustion factor.. Durin's Bane and Gandalf fought about ten days. Quite a stamina. I don't think either of them were that tired at the Bridge. I think Gandalf had used his "normal resources", but when he saw that open confrontation was unavoidable, he claimed his hidden powers and that of Narya's, and thus raised himself a few weight-classes higher. And balrog's major strength isn't in sophisticated spells but more physical activity (ok, let's say destruction).

You know, for a balrog to have wings, one needs so enormous amount of explanations that it seems sometimes ridiculous. "Shadow theory" can do with much less, most if not all of it based on texts.

But to each their own picture of balrog.  (Then again, if we were f ex a film group deciding about the appearance of valaraukar.. Oh dear.  )


----------



## Red Istar

> _Originally posted by ithrynluin _
> *Yes, Gandalf was rather helpless there for a moment, and the Balrog might have been weakened also (though I think that it was Gandalf who was at a disadvantage at that moment, because it seems he did not expect the counterspell). That could easily have been the case with both of them when they finally clashed on the bridge. All their strength was spent in that moment.*


*

Yes, especially since Gandalf just didn't give up and he tried to counter the Balrog's counter-spell. A Counter-counter spell if you will. 




And don't worry about misspelling my name - lots of people do it. Some use shorter versions like 'ithy', 'ithryn', 'ith' or even 'itchy'.  

Click to expand...

*
lol, okay. 



> And about the exhaustion factor.. Durin's Bane and Gandalf fought about ten days. Quite a stamina. I don't think either of them were that tired at the Bridge. I think Gandalf had used his "normal resources", but when he saw that open confrontation was unavoidable, he claimed his hidden powers and that of Narya's, and thus raised himself a few weight-classes higher. And balrog's major strength isn't in sophisticated spells but more physical activity (ok, let's say destruction).



Gandalf admitted that he was very weary. I'm not sure about your theory with the "hidden powers." The Istari were not allowed to reveal the full extent of their powers, or perhaps a Balrog was an exception?  And big G also referred to a "counter-spell" in particular, not "a Balrog pushing against the door."


----------



## Thuringwethil

> Gandalf admitted that he was very weary. I'm not sure about your theory with the "hidden powers." The Istari were not allowed to reveal the full extent of their powers, or perhaps a Balrog was an exception?



Yes, he was exhausted, because he had a form and limitations of a man. He was bound to be like that. But when he realized it was a balrog he was fighting, he broke the rules, revealed his maiarian self and equaled his opponent. He was pardoned (and returned more powerful), because no one excepted some Angband refugee turning up. Or maybe it was a test set up by Eru.

So yes, balrog was an exception.



> And big G also referred to a "counter-spell" in particular, not "a Balrog pushing against the door."



I know balrog does sophisticated magic too. I said it is not its strong point. Valaraukar are warriors first, not mages as are the Istari and Sauron f ex. Had Gandalf used his true powers immediately, he would've held the door. But he didn't know what his opponent was, and thus kept his cover, and thus lost. At the Bridge he saw that stealthiness was not the word of the day, brute force was needed. And since they had no Glorfindel, only Gandalf was up to the task. Not as an old man, but as Olorin, Servant of Eru, Wielder of Narya. He revealed his powers with the words in your signature. (The thing about Dark fire was partially a bluff, though, but worked anyway.)

That's my image of things.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> Easily? Pardon me, but I don't think so. Think gliding. It is very energy-saving way to use wings. Even tired and wounded birds can glide most of the time. And the bigger the better; and balrog is supposed to have 100ft wings here..



There's a big difference between gliding and hovering. If you want to glide, especially with wings as huge as the Balrog's are supposed to be, you need _lots_ of space, and wind/movement of air is quite welcome also. I doubt there was that much space in every part of the bridge room, and as for wind, I'd say it was pretty much non-existent, save for a few currents. 



> he claimed his hidden powers and that of Narya's



Do you really want to get into this argument again?  Narya had no powers that would enhance one's prowess in battle. Unless of course you are referring to Narya's ability to kindle hearts to courages deeds, in which case this would be just about the only thing that it did for Gandalf in his battle with the Balrog. Being a Maia, Gandalf was rather well 'equipped' for fighting one of his own order.


----------



## Red Istar

> Narya had no powers that would enhance one's prowess in battle.



That's my opinion also. I think Gandalf's skill with fire was from his being a wizard, not the ring. After all, Saruman seemed to be pretty handy with fire also. 



> Yes, he was exhausted, because he had a form and limitations of a man. He was bound to be like that. But when he realized it was a balrog he was fighting, he broke the rules, revealed his maiarian self and equaled his opponent. He was pardoned (and returned more powerful), because no one excepted some Angband refugee turning up. Or maybe it was a test set up by Eru.
> 
> So yes, balrog was an exception.



Sounds good to me.


----------



## Red Istar

> _Originally posted by ithrynluin _
> *There's a big difference between gliding and hovering. If you want to glide, especially with wings as huge as the Balrog's are supposed to be, you need lots of space, and wind/movement of air is quite welcome also. I doubt there was that much space in every part of the bridge room, and as for wind, I'd say it was pretty much non-existent, save for a few currents.*


*

Took the words right out of my mouth. Literally.  *


----------



## Lantarion

> *Originally posted by Thuringwethil*
> Of course, if the wings were useless, they wouldn't save a falling balrog. But then again, what would a maia do with useless wings?


Well, it depends how you classify 'useless'. They are hardly useless, as they invoke an unspeakable terror upon those who see them (psychology 101: big things are usually scarier than small things ), or at least add to the overall horifying effect, which I beelieve has its origins in the very essense of the Maia who has become a Balrog; that in becoming a Balrog, the Maia has forfeited a part of his 'soul' in order to gain a new element (let's call it the 'Gift of Melkor', it has a nice ring to it ) which invokes utter fear in everything. 

But in the sense of active, birdlike wings, in my opinion the Balrog's wings are useless; after all they are the same fiery/unlight essense that he is, and therefore only relatively corporeal.


----------



## Red Istar

Something just occured to me:



> But when he realized it was a balrog he was fighting, he broke the rules, revealed his maiarian self and equaled his opponent.



Okay, so according to this theory, the Istari could reveal their Mairian nature at will, even if they were not supposed to.

Then...

what kept Saruman from exposing his true power and using it to conquer his foes? I doubt he was particularly concerned about disoberying the Valar. 

It seems to me, then, not only are the Istari forbidden to display their Mairian might, they are _unable_ to do so.


----------



## Lantarion

Nothing kept Saruman from revealing his true powers, which is why he held such a tight grip over Rohan and had such success in battles; and also why he had so many underlings in his service. Gandalf was certainly capable of doing so too, but he was an emmissary of Good, and realized that; Saruman was just a greedy little "****" and didn't care about the rules. 
Only when he was given express permission by the Valar or Ilúvatar even, was he allowed to take on the full power of his might; at least to the extent that it was possible in a humanoid form and within Arda.
NOTE: Gandalf was allowed to use his powers to whatever extent he wanted to, but he was not allowed to 'array himself in power' in order to influence the Free Poeples of Middle-Earth. E.g. his actions on Weathertop were not against the rules.

But this is beside the point! No meandering!


----------



## Red Istar

> _Originally posted by Lantarion _
> *Nothing kept Saruman from revealing his true powers, which is why he held such a tight grip over Rohan and had such success in battles; and also why he had so many underlings in his service. Gandalf was certainly capable of doing so too, but he was an emmissary of Good, and realized that; Saruman was just a greedy little "****" and didn't care about the rules.
> Only when he was given express permission by the Valar or Ilúvatar even, was he allowed to take on the full power of his might; at least to the extent that it was possible in a humanoid form and within Arda.
> NOTE: Gandalf was allowed to use his powers to whatever extent he wanted to, but he was not allowed to 'array himself in power' in order to influence the Free Poeples of Middle-Earth. E.g. his actions on Weathertop were not against the rules.
> 
> But this is beside the point! No meandering!  *



I must slay myself for my incompetence! *falls upon Glamdring*


----------



## Gothmog

I have not read much of this thread as yet. I decided to post my views without too much influence of prior posts. I will probably post later on other points. 


> Deep in forgotten places that cry was heard. Far beneath the ruined halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their Lord; and now swiftly they arose, and *passing over* Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.


 It has been stated that the above quote shows that Balrogs fly and therefore must have wings due to the "usual" use of 'Passing Over' is in reference to flying. However, in saying this there is a neglect of understanding that Tolkien's use at the time when he wrote these words may be somewhat different to the "normal" usage today. But even the word "Flying" has more than one meaning. Let us look at some of these.

Fly:
1. to move through the air by means of wings as a bird does.
2. to travel through the air or through space.
3. to travel in an aircraft.
4. to direct or control the flight of (an aircraft etc.), to transport in an aircraft.
5.to raise (a flag) to wave in the air.
6. to make (a kite) rise and stay aloft.
7. to go or move quickly, to rush along. (of time) to pass quickly.
8. to be scattered violently, sparks flew in all direction.
9. to become angry etc, flew into a rage.
10. to flee from, must fly the country.

I think that we can discount No's 3, 4, 5, 6, & 8 as they seem to have no relation to the question. This leaves 1, 2, 7, 9 & 10.

No 9 while no doubt applicable would not explain how they got to Melkor. No 10 would have them going in the wrong direction. No 2 only indicates flight without giving method. So this leaves us with only No's 1 & 7.

So which meaning was Tolkien using? Let us look at some other quotes.

Of Carcharoth travelling from Angband to Doriath.


> But in the north of his realm his messengers met with a peril sudden and unlooked for: the onslaught of Carcharoth, the Wolf of Angband. In his madness he had run ravening from the north, and *passing at length over* Taur-nu-Fuin upon its eastern side he came down from the sources of Esgalduin like a destroying fire. Nothing hindered him, and the might of Melian upon the borders of the land stayed him not; for fate drove him, and the power of the Silmaril that he bore to his torment. Thus he burst into the inviolate woods of Doriath, and all fled away in fear. Alone of the messengers Mablung, chief captain of the King, escaped, and he brought the dread tidings to Thingol.


 Of Gandalf on Shadowfax.


> 'Yes, lord. Many have seen an old man in white upon a horse, *passing hither and thither over* the plains like wind in the grass. Some thought he was Saruman. It is said that he went away ere nightfall towards Isengard. Some say also that Wormtongue was seen earlier, going northward with a company of Orcs.'


 So we now have three quotes where Tolkien has creatures "Passing Over" somewhere. The Balrogs passing over Hithlum, Carcharoth "Passing Over" Taur-nu-Fuin and Gandalf & Shadowfax "Passing Over" the plains in Rohan.

We know that Carcharoth and Shadowfax did not have wings and could not fly in the manner of Birds. It seems that Tolkien used the term "Passing Over" to mean in these cases "To go or move quickly, to rush along". So is it so hard to think that he might be using this term consistently by having the Balrogs travel very quickly over Hithlum? Not Flying (flapping wings like a bird) but flying (racing along the ground at a speed truly incredible to the lesser children of Eru).

It has also been said that the reason the two Balrogs fell to their deaths was probably due to them being too exhausted to fly after fighting Glorfindel and Gandalf. Let us look at this also.

First the Great Glorfindel's death match.

We must look to the Book of Lost Tales II to give the best view of this conflict. So we come to the perilous way of Cristhorn. later called Cirith Thoronath the Eagles' Cleft.


> Already the half had passed the perilous way and the falls of Thorn Sir, *when that Balrog that was with the rearward foe leapt with great might on certain lofty rocks that stood into the path on the left side upon the lip of the chasm, and thence with a leap of fury he was past Glorfindel's men and among the women and the sick in front*, lashing with his whip of flame. Then Glorfindel leapt forward upon him and his golden armour gleamed strangely in the moon, *and he hewed at that demon that it leapt again upon a great boulder and Glorfindel after*. Now there was a deadly combat upon that high rock above the folk; and these, pressed behind and hindered ahead, were grown so close that well nigh all could see, yet was it over ere Glorfindel's men could leap to his side.


 Now onto Gandalf's encounter.

First view of the Balrog by the Fellowship.


> Something was coming up behind them. *What it was could not be seen*: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.


 Then it moved towards them.


> It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it. Then with a rush it *leaped* across the fissure. The flames roared up to greet it, and wreathed about it; and a black smoke swirled in the air. Its streaming mane kindled, and blazed behind it. In its right hand was a blade like a stabbing tongue of fire; in its left it held a whip of many thongs.


 After it passed the fissure


> The dark figure streaming with fire *raced* towards them


 This seems uncharacteristic for a creature possessed of wings which would be a hindrance in running. But then we have the most famous quotes.


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


 And


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


 Now then. Before the battle of Glorfindel with the Balrog we can be reasonably sure that it was not very tired as it had been waiting to ambush any Elves that fled from Gondolin by way of the pass in the mountains that the refugees took. So then, why did it not Flap Its Wings and Fly to the head of the column? Instead of this very simple method of travel for a winged creature it " leapt with great might on certain lofty rocks that stood into the path on the left side upon the lip of the chasm". So there is no evidence that the Balrog could fly even if it was not tired out or injured from a battle. In fact I would say that this shows that a Balrog could *not* fly at all.

On then to Gandalf and Durin's Bane.

The First view of the Balrog states "What it was could not be seen". So any description of it could not be accurate. However, in reading through this we find something that is very similar to what happened above Gondolin so long before. There is absolutely *no evidence whatsoever* that the Balrog had any ability to fly in the manner of birds *before* it became involved in battle.

Of all descriptions of Balrogs in the works of Tolkien there seems to be only One that gives it wings and this follows a description of its Shadow spreading *like* wings.

When I read the Lord of the Rings for the first time I pictured the Balrog as being without wings. All that I have read since of the writings of Tolkien and discussions on various sites about this question have not changed my mind on this.

It is my view that Balrogs do not have wings.


----------



## Gandalf White

> When I read the Lord of the Rings for the first time I pictured the Balrog as being without wings. All that I have read since of the writings of Tolkien and discussions on various sites about this question have not changed my mind on this.


 But doesn't this sum it all up? My belief is that everyone is basing their opinion on what they imagined the first time through the books. Each side can apparently back up their respective views, and that's all that matters to them. I myself hold to certain arguments to keep my original view of the Balrog.


----------



## Gothmog

> _Originally posted by Gandalf White _
> *But doesn't this sum it all up? My belief is that everyone is basing their opinion on what they imagined the first time through the books. Each side can apparently back up their respective views, and that's all that matters to them. I myself hold to certain arguments to keep my original view of the Balrog. *


 While I hold to certain arguments Because of my view of the the Balrog. Also because I have yet to find anything that contidicts my view. However, since Tolkien made very sure that there was *No* clear image of the Balrog, every body will have to make up their own minds.

But it can be fun trying to prove which is right.


----------



## Eru

Balrogs, I believe, are essentially shapeless.

The image of the Balrog spreading his wings across the chasm whilst mentioning earlier before that he had passed through a small entrance is not a question of size/mass to me.

A Balrog's physicality would indeed hinder it if it was massive, and perhaps render it less powerful if it was man-sized but the main question remains, did it have wings?

Ok, I understand the arguments about it stepping onto the bridge, and the wings being merely shadow, and also the idea that the wings were there to form a more fierce, intimidating form (perhaps reminiscient of a devil) but I really think Tolkien meant for the Balrogs shape to be subjective.

The descrepencies in the text seem to suggest either that Tolkien intended for debate, or perhaps the master story teller was not writing with a ruler and tape out, making sure all the measurements work. Tolkien only knows whether Balrogs had wings or not, and I am sure he enjoys being the only one!


----------



## Rhiannon

The wings or no question has never been one that I felt the need to figure out; I'm a very accepting reader, and I can do without concrete details. But I was still _really_ amused by this How to Mis-read Lord of the Rings. Don't stop at the first question...keep going.


----------



## Saermegil

They had wings, but they were rather like batman's cape. Not very useful byt very very cool.


----------



## BlackCaptain

Rhiannon said:


> The wings or no question has never been one that I felt the need to figure out; I'm a very accepting reader, and I can do without concrete details. But I was still _really_ amused by this How to Mis-read Lord of the Rings. Don't stop at the first question...keep going.


That site is PERFECT. I completely agree with the "Does it matter if Balrog's have wings?". This like, completely fortifies everything i've been thinking for a while. Tolkien's fantasy was created so that we can re-create it in our heads. I mean... 

But one thing that confuses me... Gimli thought that the nazgul flying overhead was a Balrog at first, and wasn't Gimli in Khazad-Dum when the bridge broke? Surely he would have a mental picture in his head of what he remembered the Balrog to be. I'm convinced that they do have wings, please everyone, read the "Does it matter if Balrogs have wings?" in the link Rhiannon provided. It WILL enlighten you


----------



## Gothmog

BlackCaptain said:


> It WILL enlighten you



But will it lighten the shadow enclosing the Balrog and allow all to see the answer?


----------



## BlackCaptain

Hm... In a metaphorical sense?


----------



## Aulë

> 17: Do Balrogs Have Wings?
> 
> Toy Vault manufactures a reasonably nice range of non-movie related Lord of the Rings action figures. On the packaging of the Balrog model are clearly emblazoned the words: ‘with removable wings.’


Hahahahahahaha- Love it! 
It caters for everyone!


----------



## BlackCaptain

Haha I got a kick out of that one too.... Rog, are you formerly Aulë??


----------



## Aulë

BlackCaptain said:


> Haha I got a kick out of that one too.... Rog, are you formerly Aulë??


Weeeell....I _was_ formerly Pippin Took....


----------



## Lord Sauron

I am with all of you that said they do have wings.


----------



## BlackCaptain

I've come to a conclusion.... I think they might be exactly like Tolkien says they are.

They are wings.... just not tangible ones. I think they're wings, made of shadow, to enhance the fear that goes with Balrogs. That's why Gimli thought the Balrog was flying over the Anduin... because he saw the wings. I think PJ did a great job of enterpreting it actualy


----------



## greypilgrim

Wings made of shadow are still wings. I think they had wings.


----------



## Timothy

I agree with you Gothmog.I also want to complete that in Silmarillion Tolkin says that Glaurung, the father of dragons,who had no wings, run ahead and the Balrogs were following him.So we can understand that balrogs were runing behind Glaurung,who was running too.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

ReadWryt said:


> "The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm."
> 
> I don't need to say anything else.



Checkmate! Now I guess, the next logical question is, Could Balrogs fly (and of course, did they have belly buttons...I won't take it any farther)?

Seeing as how Gandalf and the B plunged into the depths, and that they _climbed_ the Endless Stair to the top of the mountain, one gets the impression that the B's wings were as useless as those on an ostrich or a kiwi...or maybe they had atrophied from lack of use...

The quote is right there. I can't see what there is to interpret: _this_ Balrog had wings. Following common sense and logic, I would extrapolate from that, that _all other_ Balrogs had them too. (I went back into the Silmarillion, but no luck. There's plenty of mention of eagle and dragon wings, but no mention of Balrog wings. Indeed, this description of Balrog wings in LOTR seems to be singular. As I say, it seems sensible to conclude that if _one_ Balrog had something as fundamental as wings, then they must all have had 'em. Tolkien never said.

Barley


----------



## Gothmog

> The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, *and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings*. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils. But Gandalf stood firm.
> `You cannot pass,' he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. `I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass.'
> The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, *and its wings were spread from wall to wall*; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.


FotR: The Bridge of Khazad-dûm 

Checkmate? I think not. The "Wings" existed only in the Mind not on the Balrog. The Shadow surrounding the Balrog was a thing produced by the creature itself. What is written as wings in the second quote is due to the appearance of the shadow reaching out from the Balrog.

But let us look at this question from a slightly different angle. Now the Balrog was not a naturally occurring creature of Middle-earth, neither was it created by Eru or the Ainur in sub-creation through the Music. It was an Ainu self-incarnated after the fashion of Melkor (who seems not to have had wings). So we must ask why would an Ainu create a body with wings?

There are only Two credible reasons for attaching wings to the body of a Balrog.

1) To Fly or Glide (that is to fly after the manner of birds or of less able creatures)

2) To use for intimidation by increasing the apparent size of the Balrog.

Point 1. There is nowhere in all the works of Tolkien that I have see where there is any hint of a Balrog either flying or gliding. Indeed the Balrog Runs, Jumps, Leaps and *Falls!* but it seems that it has the flying/gliding ability of a brick.

Point 2) Why would it have any reason to encumber itself with ungainly and otherwise useless appendages? To Increase its apparent size the Balrog would need only to extend its Shadow. To intimidate it would need only to be in the area. Lets look at the first sight of the Balrog in Moria:


> Legolas turned and set an arrow to the string, though it was a long shot for his small bow. He drew, but his hand fell, and the arrow slipped to the ground. He gave a cry of dismay and fear. Two great trolls appeared; they bore great slabs of stone, and flung them down to serve as gangways over the fire. But it was not the trolls that had filled the Elf with terror. The ranks of the orcs had opened, and they crowded away, as if they themselves were afraid. Something was coming up behind them. What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; *and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.*


 So it seems that the Balrog could not use wings to fly in any manner and had no need of them for intimidation. 

Your Move


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Timothy! You see what you started???!!

Barley


----------



## Gothmog

Personally I don't think this question will ever be answered, though there are loremasters on other sites that think that there is a definative answer.

It is my view that Balrogs do not and never had wings. I have held this view from the very first time I read the book. It is also my view that Tolkien intended with the change he made to this scene in the book that each reader would see the Balrog in the way that seems most demonic and terrifying to them.

So while Tolkien never gave a definitive answer to it, even the very passage contradicts itself (just as it would if the creature cannot be clearly seen). You see the Balrog with Wings. I see the Balrog without them. We are both correct as it is our personal interpretation of the rather shadowed image that Tolkien intentionally gave us.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Gothmog said:


> ...You see the Balrog with Wings. I see the Balrog without them. We are both correct as it is our personal interpretation of the rather shadowed image that Tolkien intentionally gave us.



Let's compromise — how about _one wing_...right in the center of his back?

Barley


----------



## Encaitare

From the poll results, I see I'm in the minority here -- I don't think they had wings in the physical sense... the idea of wings of shadow, IMHO, is not literal.

There's a great article on this topic here: http://www.barrowdowns.com/articles_balrogs.php


----------



## scotsboyuk

@Gothmog

Balrogs do have wings.


----------



## Gothmog

Well I would be interesed to hear your arguments in favour of this as in my opinion the only way that a Balrog could have wings is to get a pilot's licence. Or (concidering how often they fall to their deaths) perhaps a large house would be a better option.


----------



## scotsboyuk

@Gothmog

It is really rather simple, Balrogs have wings because I say so. Please don't forget that I am a newbie here, so any theory I forward should be accepted as fact.

Well now that I've solved this one it's probaly best to lock this thread.


----------



## MichaelMartinez

Well, the poll's percentage seems to be consistent with a poll we ran at Xenite a few years ago. About 74 per cent of people there felt Peter Jackson's Balrog should be winged. I doubt any significant percentage shifts will occur any time in the near future.


----------



## scotsboyuk

I wonder why the wings are so popular.


----------



## Astaldo

Because it's a mystery. And mysteries are popular.


----------



## Ugluk

Forget what the movies depicted! The Balrogs, or Valaukar, did not need wings down deep beneath the earth.


----------



## Astaldo

And how can you be so sure? Welcome to the forum by the way.


----------



## greypilgrim

Balrogs were above ground more than below...


----------



## Arvedui

There is only one place where one can be lead to believe that Balrogs had wings, and that is in the much referred to quote:


> and its wings were spread from wall to wall;


This and subsequent quotes from _The Bridge of Khazad-Dûm_
I don't think that the phrasing "its wings" were more than a referrence to:


> and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.


 a few sentences before. If one looks even further up, there is a description:


> What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and go before it.


 Nothing is said there of any wings, but rather "man-shape."

At leat two Balrogs that I can think of at the moment were killed after falling from great heights. If they had wings, then at least they could have used them for gliding, even if they could not use them as an eagle or something.

And the final, conclusive evidence that Balrogs did NOT have wings, is that PJ showed it with wings in the movie. And we all know that everything he did is wrong, right?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Arvedui said:


> ...the final, conclusive evidence that Balrogs did NOT have wings, is that PJ showed it with wings in the movie. And we all know that everything he did is wrong, right?



I still like my compromise: _one_ wing, right in the middle of the back.

Barley


----------



## treebeardgarden

If Balrogs had wings would he not have flown away from Gandalf rather than being defeated. Thus changing the outcome of the war of the ring. no one to gather re-enforcements to aid the Rohirim or to engage one of the nine outside the white. need I go on.


----------



## balrog

remember that there are species of animals that have wings, and connot fly! a penguin for example, awe, aren't they cute!  

as for the balrog, they ain't so cute!


----------



## treebeardgarden

After some thought you may be right. this proves that JJR intending the balrogs to have wings.

[The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and it *Wings* were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen ]

remember that there are species of animals that have wings, and connot fly! a penguin for example, awe, aren't they cute!  

as for the balrog, they ain't so cute![/QUOTE]


----------



## Lantarion

treebeardgarden said:


> After some thought you may be right. this proves that JJR intending the balrogs to have wings.


It doesn't actually prove anything at all. After 25 pages of exhibiting evidence, I think from here on it's pure conjecture (and has always been).
balrog's point is valid, but it has been raised before. I think it is safe to say that there is no question of whether the Valarauko of Moria had wings or not; the question is rather concerning the material of those wings: were his 'wings' simply his shadow essense extending to take the form of wings, or did he actually have physical, 'bone-and-tendon' wings with which he could fly?

Considering that the Balrog was a creature of fire and shadow, I find it very hard to believe that anything tangible (in terms of a humanoid or animal body) could be a part of his earthly form besides the indescribable 'darkness' and 'shadow'. 


First post in a lonngg while, hi all.


----------



## Ceorl

wow its been a long time since I participated on this forum, and it has changed alot, but here's my couple of cents:

while I believe that the Balrog in Moria certainly did not have wings, save of shadow (else why would he have fallen off the bridge, indeed why step on it at all?) as balrogs were all corrupted spirits of the order of slightly lesser maiar (as I understand it) who were originally able to assume any form they wanted, perhaps when they were forced into a permanent corporeal form they all assumed similar, yet slightly different forms; some say, with wings, and some without. At the same time this negates the theory of 'useless' wings, as what highly intelligent form of being would assume a form with a pair (or just one, as Barliman suggested) of wings that were utterly useless. I think it is fairly safe also to assume that any possible wings were not made for swimming like a penguin's; they were, after all, creatures of fire.


----------



## Confusticated

Ceorl! Wow!! I didn't expect to ever see you return! You plan on stopping by regularly or is this a one time event?

WOW!! 

It will be cool if you can stick around.

I'm not sure if you remember me, you may remember me as 'Confusticated'.


----------



## Ceorl

hey Nom, its good to be here, I dont really know if I will be here for long, I'm off to university in a week and i'm not sure how the internet is rigged up there.

I was here when you changed my name though; I remember thinking, 'Damn that's another cool name I didn't think of when signing up!'

anyway, hmm I seem to be posting off topic so, let me just say again that I don't think that the Balrog had any wings at all.


----------



## Mike

I'll put in my two cents: 

THE BALROG DID NOT HAVE WINGS!

There.


----------



## Annaheru

". . . and the shadow about it reached out LIKE two vast wings" The Fellowship

Tolkien said that what was in the shadow appeared to be in man shape, but greater. This is consistent with other maia and the Valar, remember they normally took the shape of the children of Iluvatar, even Morgoth assumed man shape, but in a massive and terrible (or even pleasing) way. No balrog in the Silmarillion had wings.


----------



## Durin's Bane

I believe that we can all agree that the movie-makers gave a wrong form to the balrog. It is man-shaped...


----------



## Hammersmith

Didn't a crew of Balrogs attack the moon-maiar in the Silmarillion? How'd they get up there if they were wingless?


----------



## Durin's Bane

Well he is wingless and is there...


----------



## Hammersmith

That has yet to be proven.

By the way...I wonder what the particular Moria Balrog was named...?


----------



## Durin's Bane

Did they have any?


----------



## Hammersmith

Gothmog did. Even orcses did. Why not this poor neglected wing-wearing fellow?


----------



## Durin's Bane

I guess that since every thing has a name, every balrog has. Yet it isn't mentioned...
The wing-wearing is yet to be discussed


----------



## Hammersmith

Then I shall call him "Winged Morgan". But honestly; how did the Balrogs attack the moon maiar if they were ground bound?


----------



## Annaheru

Did Morgoth have wings? How then did he pass like a cloud from Valinor? Did Tilion or Arien have wings? How then did they bear the Sun and Moon? The ability to fly is not tied to wings (atleast, not for the Ainu at any rate). 

Also the Sil says Morgoth sent "Spirits of shadow" against the Moon. They would not necessarily have had to be Balrogs. Indeed, since Tolkien seems to have always used the word 'Balrog' when refering to them it might be prudent to assume they weren't Balrogs on the grounds that "if Tolkien had meant for Balrogs to assault the moon he would have said 'Then he assailed Tilion, sending Balrogs against him'."


----------



## Durin's Bane

Anyway, who says that all balrogs look alike.

Some may have wings, some may not. Atleast that one in Moria didn't have according to the book.


----------



## Greenwood

Durin's Bane said:


> Anyway, who says that all balrogs look alike.
> 
> Some may have wings, some may not. Atleast that one in Moria didn't have according to the book.


You raise an interesting question with the idea that not all balrogs looked alike. As for the one in Moria, clearly an overwhelming majority of the people taking this poll feel that it did indeed have wings. Personally, I have always thought it did.


----------



## Ithrynluin

For years I held the belief that Balrogs had wings, and I held fast to it. Then, gradually, my beliefs and opinions shifted towards the no-wing 'camp'. When looking at all the evidence laid out before us, wingless Balrogs simply make more sense than winged ones.


----------



## Greenwood

Ithrynluin said:


> wingless Balrogs simply make more sense than winged ones.


In what way?


----------



## Gothmog

Balrogs are "Self-incarnated" Maiar, They do not at any time indulge in any form of flight (with of course the notable exception of very swift retreat on foot or by falling).

So considering that wings would serve no purpose to the Balrog (an Apparent increase in size is achieved by the shadow that surrounds the Balrog), why would any being capable of choosing its own shape encumber itself with apendages that would only serve to cause it problems by getting in the way of its movements?

Personally, when I first read the LotR, my view of the Balrog was, due to the discription in the book, that of a creature without wings and surrounded by an "UnLight" that could be extended to make it seem larger. Argumanets and pictures that I have seen since have all failed to alter this first impression gained from Tolkien's words.


----------



## Arvedui

I am looking at your Avatar, Gothmog. ANd the Balrog there has no wings, so I guess that settles it....


----------



## Celebthôl

Ithrynluin said:


> For years I held the belief that Balrogs had wings, and I held fast to it. Then, gradually, my beliefs and opinions shifted towards the no-wing 'camp'. When looking at all the evidence laid out before us, wingless Balrogs simply make more sense than winged ones.



Yeah, but wings are more menacing...right Ithy? 
I mean, it makes a menacing monster, even more menacing. Plus it looks real cool!


----------



## Gothmog

Celebthôl said:


> Yeah, but wings are more menacing...right Ithy?
> I mean, it makes a menacing monster, even more menacing. Plus it looks real cool!


I have seen this idea put forward a number of times as good reason for the Balrog to have wings. Yet I still find it strangely unconvincing, perhaps because of this:


> What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and go before it.


When I see the comment "Wings are more menacing" I always wonder just how wings that cannot be seen in the menacing shadow could make the Balrog more "menacing"?


----------



## Celebthôl

Well, if the Balrog came out into the sunlight, say when Glorfindel had his battle, and the shadow was extinguished due to the sunlight, it would be more menacing if the being after losing his shadow had massive wings to make it look bigger instead of nothing and I get this really runty and defeated looking image of a balrog when I think of a balrog with no wings, sort of standing there looking kind of limp with his hands at his sides and his whip and sword in his hands but pointing/resting on the floor. Hehe, but thats just me.


----------



## Hammersmith

Gothmog said:


> When I see the comment "Wings are more menacing" I always wonder just how wings that cannot be seen in the menacing shadow could make the Balrog more "menacing"?


Naturally if the wings were obscured by smoke, the smoke would cover that much more of an area than a smoked and wingless Balrog.


----------



## Gothmog

Hammersmith said:


> Naturally if the wings were obscured by smoke, the smoke would cover that much more of an area than a smoked and wingless Balrog.


   What smoke?

The Balrog was surrounded by a Shadow not by the free-floating carbonised remains of combustion.


----------



## Hammersmith

Gothmog said:


> What smoke?
> 
> The Balrog was surrounded by a Shadow not by the free-floating carbonised remains of combustion.


I used shadow and smoke synonymously. Because someone before me did. The point stands. More wings equals more shadow to be around them. A runty wingless Balrog would have a third less shadow, at a conservative estimate or arbitrary assumption, than a winged and shadowed Balrog.


----------



## Gothmog

Hammersmith said:


> I used shadow and smoke synonymously. Because someone before me did. The point stands. More wings equals more shadow to be around them. A runty wingless Balrog would have a third less shadow, at a conservative estimate or arbitrary assumption, than a winged and shadowed Balrog.


Arbitrary and baseless assumption. Why would wings make any difference to the shadow of the Balrog? The Shadow was not caused by light behind the Balrog where the physical size of the the creature would determine the size of the shadow. The Shadow was an 'Un-light' that the Balrog could extend at will to whatever extent it chose.


----------



## Aiglos

Look... If Balrogs spend so much time falling off cliffs and other various opportune precipices, how can they have wings, or at least how can they have wings that work....?

It DOES look cool for them to have wings though.....


----------



## Greenwood

Aiglos said:


> If Balrogs spend so much time falling off cliffs and other various opportune precipices, how can they have wings, or at least how can they have wings that work....?


Just because they have wings does not automatically mean they can fly. I can give you a long list of birds with wings that cannot fly.


----------



## Hammersmith

Gothmog said:


> Arbitrary and baseless assumption. Why would wings make any difference to the shadow of the Balrog? The Shadow was not caused by light behind the Balrog where the physical size of the the creature would determine the size of the shadow. The Shadow was an 'Un-light' that the Balrog could extend at will to whatever extent it chose.


"To whatever extent it chose"?
So by that argument, a Balrog in Mordor could extend unlight all the way to Valinor?
No. It makes more sense that the Balrog could exude the smoke/unlight from its body, by which logic the greater the Balrog's bulk, the more unlight it could produce.

@Greenwood: Good point!


----------



## Annaheru

But birds don't create their own bodies. Useless wing for a creature that made its own physical form is just silly.And a Balrog's shadow extension is not limitless, but that doesn't make wings any more likely. If a Balrog's shadow is a rejection of light (or absorption, same effect), then the extension of that shadow would only be limited by the inherent power of the Balrog which is not limited to a Balrog's physical mass.


----------



## Celebthôl

Haha! YES! Looks like we got ourselves an old fasioned argument on our hands boys!


----------



## Greenwood

Annaheru said:


> But birds don't create their own bodies. Useless wing for a creature that made its own physical form is just silly.


I think I will just ignore the potential for a thrilling: "What came first, the chicken or the egg debate?"  

Sticking to balrogs, it must be remembered that they are creations of Tolkien's imagination and if he decided they had wings (or even just one of them), than wings it is. Arguments based on utility have no standing. Even within the confines of Middle Earth, arguments based on utility would be pointless since, as you say the balrogs chose their own form -- they didn't evolve. Maybe a balrog thought wings were "cool".


----------



## Hammersmith

Remember also that even flightless birds do not find wings "useless". They can use them in fighting, attracting mates and frightening foes/predators.


----------



## Gothmog

Hammersmith said:


> "To whatever extent it chose"?
> So by that argument, a Balrog in Mordor could extend unlight all the way to Valinor?
> No. It makes more sense that the Balrog could exude the smoke/unlight from its body, by which logic the greater the Balrog's bulk, the more unlight it could produce.


Perhaps he could, we only know for certain that this Balrog could extend the Unlight from wall to wall within the confines of Moria.
Why does make more sense?? I agree that the Balrog exudes the unlight from its self. However, it would not be the bulk of the body but the power of the spirit that would determine the amount of space that could be encompassed by its unlight.



Greenwood said:


> Sticking to balrogs, it must be remembered that they are creations of Tolkien's imagination and if he decided they had wings (or even just one of them), than wings it is.


Yes they are indeed creations fo Tolkien's mind. And Tolkien changed his discription of the Balrog from a clearly seen creature to one cloaked in shadow. So if Tolkien decided that they had wings he certainly did not let on to anybody about it.


----------



## Greenwood

Hammersmith said:


> Remember also that even flightless birds do not find wings "useless". They can use them in fighting, attracting mates and frightening foes/predators.


True in some, cases, but certainly not all. Some fligthless birds such as the extinct Great Auk and penguins use their wings to "fly" underwater, but in other birds such as ostrichs, emus, cassowaries, etc., the wings are pretty useless wings. The original point, however, was the suggestion that wings automatically implied the power of flight. They don't.



Gothmog said:


> Yes they are indeed creations fo Tolkien's mind. And Tolkien changed his discription of the Balrog from a clearly seen creature to one cloaked in shadow. So if Tolkien decided that they had wings he certainly did not let on to anybody about it.


You mean with a sentence something like: "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; .... " [from The Bridge of Khazad-dum in ROTK, emphasis added] I am well aware of the sentence two paragraphs earlier that says: "... the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings." It is the interpretation of these two sentences that gives rise to this discussion.


----------



## Gothmog

Greenwood said:


> You mean with a sentence something like: "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; .... " [from The Bridge of Khazad-dum in ROTK, emphasis added] I am well aware of the sentence two paragraphs earlier that says: "... the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings." It is the interpretation of these two sentences that gives rise to this discussion.


No I actually mean with a separate comment either in one of his letters or in his notes. As you point out the two sentences prevent a clear answer to the question.

It is my view that Tolkien did this deliberately. He allowed us to put in our own demon rather than impose his idea of it.


----------



## Greenwood

Gothmog said:


> It is my view that Tolkien did this deliberately. He allowed us to put in our own demon rather than impose his idea of it.


You may be right. Obviously, none of us now can know what was in Tolkien's mind when he wrote it. Personally, I think Tolkien had a view of what balrogs looked like and the reason he left no comments about it is no one asked him. I suspect if he had been asked he would have given an answer one way or the other on wings. But, maybe not.


----------



## Gothmog

I agree that Tolkien probably had his view of the Balrog. He chose to hide it in the unlight (which is possibly why there is nothing in his notes). 

I think that had he been asked he would have still left the question open, it would have been a shame to take such trouble to hide the exact shape of the Balrog and then give a clear answer later. 

It also gives an un-answerable question to be chwed over any time things get too quiet.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

I keep telling you people — it's _one wing_, growing right out of his spine!  

Barley


----------



## Hammersmith

Gothmog said:


> It is my view that Tolkien did this deliberately. He allowed us to put in our own demon rather than impose his idea of it.


 
Just to be even more pedantic, I notice that you've adopted the common term of demon for the Balrog, as describing a fallen Maiar spirit. Would the faithful Maiar thus be called angels?


----------



## Greenwood

Gothmog said:


> It also gives an un-answerable question to be chewed over any time things get too quiet.


There is always the Glorfindel/Glorfindels question, not to mention my personal favorite, the dreaded Uruk-hai vs. uruks.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Greenwood said:


> There is always the Glorfindel/Glorfindels question



 
I thought the question of Glorfindel was quite settled, in that they are indeed one and the same!


----------



## Celebthôl

Haha! You wish Ithy! If it was that simple...

Theres also the Tom Bombadil side of things aswell.


----------



## Gothmog

Hammersmith said:


> Just to be even more pedantic, I notice that you've adopted the common term of demon for the Balrog, as describing a fallen Maiar spirit. Would the faithful Maiar thus be called angels?


Only if this was a statement made by a "Christian" in relation to the Christian Mythology.

Looking in the dictionary I find:


> Demon _n_ a devil or evil spirit.



Demons are found in many mythologies few of which also include 'Angels'. Personally I used Demon to mean an 'evil spirit', nothing more, nothing less.



Greenwood said:


> There is always the Glorfindel/Glorfindels question, not to mention my personal favorite, the dreaded Uruk-hai vs. uruks.


 Tokien did answer the Glorfindel question in his notes. However, Uruk-hai vs. uruks may still have some life in it


----------



## Ithrynluin

Celebthôl said:


> Haha! You wish Ithy! If it was that simple...



Oh but it is that simple. See HoME XII: The Peoples of Middle-earth. Now let's get back to the topic of Balrog wings. 

BTW, delightful to see you around here, Thol!


----------



## Hammersmith

Gothmog said:


> Only if this was a statement made by a "Christian" in relation to the Christian Mythology.


 
Okay...so in relation to the Balrog being dubbed a "demon", what would the Maiar be called, who did not side with Melkor? For that matter, what would the non-fire Maiar who did side with him be called?


----------



## Greenwood

Gothmog and Ithrynluin,

Yes, I am familiar with Tolkien's rather tortured attempts to deal with his reuse of the name Glorfindel in LOTR after killing him in The Sil. He should have just left it as an oops. His notes indicate that it was a "random" reuse of a name without full consideration before the publication of LOTR.


----------



## Flame of Udûn

Hammersmith said:


> Just to be even more pedantic, I notice that you've adopted the common term of demon for the Balrog, as describing a fallen Maiar spirit. Would the faithful Maiar thus be called angels?


I may have misunderstood, but demons are referred to numerous times in _The Silmarillion_. It is not a term that has come about on its own.


----------



## Gothmog

Hammersmith said:


> Okay...so in relation to the Balrog being dubbed a "demon", what would the Maiar be called, who did not side with Melkor? For that matter, what would the non-fire Maiar who did side with him be called?


The Maiar who did not side with Melkor were were 'Maiar' considered within the view of Arda to be "Good Spirits" and linked to one of the Valar of the West. Those who sided with Melkor, weather of the element of fire or not, would be considered to be "Evil Spirits" therefore can be called 'Demons'



Greenwood said:


> Gothmog and Ithrynluin,
> 
> Yes, I am familiar with Tolkien's rather tortured attempts to deal with his reuse of the name Glorfindel in LOTR after killing him in The Sil. He should have just left it as an oops. His notes indicate that it was a "random" reuse of a name without full consideration before the publication of LOTR.


Nice argument but one better left to another thread methinks


----------



## Celebthôl

Ithrynluin said:


> Oh but it is that simple. See HoME XII: The Peoples of Middle-earth. Now let's get back to the topic of Balrog wings.
> 
> BTW, delightful to see you around here, Thol!



Right-O chap! Good to see you again too mate, you know I couldn't keep away forever!


----------



## Hammersmith

Gothmog said:


> The Maiar who did not side with Melkor were were 'Maiar' considered within the view of Arda to be "Good Spirits" and linked to one of the Valar of the West. Those who sided with Melkor, weather of the element of fire or not, would be considered to be "Evil Spirits" therefore can be called 'Demons'


 
That logic works for me. I assume that Sauron would also be a demon then (having been a Maiar before). Did he maintain that status alongside being a dark lord when Morgoth was out of the picture? And would Morgoth as a fallen Valar also be considered a demon?

I'm bickering about semantics, I know, but I am genuinely interested.


----------



## Gothmog

Hammersmith said:


> That logic works for me. I assume that Sauron would also be a demon then (having been a Maiar before). Did he maintain that status alongside being a dark lord when Morgoth was out of the picture? And would Morgoth as a fallen Valar also be considered a demon?
> 
> I'm bickering about semantics, I know, but I am genuinely interested.


In my view Sauron was also a demon and remained such until the destruction of the One Ring (and possibly after, though in such a weakened state as to be powerless) Morgoth as a fallen Valar would have been the greatest of Demons to ever walk in Arda.

I don't see any problem with questions on the semantics, it allows us a clearer understanding of each others views


----------



## ingolmo

Now to get back on subject, as to whether Balrog's have wings or not, here is my proof that they do not have wings.

From the FotR: The Bridge of Khazad-Dum: 

His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised it's whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from it's nostrils. But Gandalf stood firm. 

Then, one paragraph later:

It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and it's wings were spread from wall to wall;

The Balrog's shadow came out like two vast wings. This means that the it's shadow is compared to wings. The second time the word 'wings' is used, it still means it's wide shadow, which is compared to wings. 

I hope I've made my point clear.


----------



## Greenwood

Or the two quotes together could mean that there were wings causing the shadow.  

The quotes are ambiguous and unless someone discovers a letter or scrap of paper in Tolkien's own hand where he specifically addresses the question, it is going to remain a matter of opinion.


----------



## Alatar

How about that if balrogs had wings, then the wouldn't be prone to falling off large hights; glorindels balrog fell down, durins bane fell from zirak zigl& the bridge of khazad dum.


----------



## Durin's Bane

Ingolmo made a very good point (just as several other before him) but no one will listen.
I don't realy see where you saw the wings-causing-shadow-logic in the quote Greenwood and i am a pretty logical person, it's clearly shadows reaching like wings from wall to wall not wings from wall to wall causing shadows in there.
And for Alatar ,thanks for sharing my position, but having wings doesn't mean you can fly (see the penguins and the ostriches) so i don't think that'd be a good point to defend.
Personaly I think that the moria balrog atleast (me actualy) forced the shadows he commanded to take the form of wings so it can be said that he 'had' wings, but not like they are material and atached to his (my) body.


----------



## Alatar

But the balrog is a maia so if i was changing into a demon of fire and i gave myself wings i would go to the trouble of making them work.
but hey whatever, i havn't decided yet.


----------



## Durin's Bane

I think it was actually morgoth who created the balrogs' forms.

But i think it's a good point, why have wings when you are not able to use them?
Hm, i think i can start arguing with myself on the matter... wings do look scary... so... why not have one...
Ok, we are sharing the same position so why argue on other matters.
Balrogs didn't have wings!


----------



## Ingwë

Great thread. 

I voted that the Balrogs have wings. I have always thought that they have. I like the quote of ReadWryt.



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


----------



## Greenwood

Durin's Bane said:


> I don't realy see where you saw the wings-causing-shadow-logic in the quote Greenwood and i am a pretty logical person, it's clearly shadows reaching like wings from wall to wall not wings from wall to wall causing shadows in there.


The first quote could well be read as referring only to shadows and if that was the only mention Tolkien made of wings and balrogs I would say the case was pretty clear. However, as has been pointed out, in the next paragraph Tolkien describes the balrog's wings as spreading from wall to wall. Tolkien does not qualify "wings" that second time. He does not say "shadow wings" or "wings of shadow", he just calls them wings. In that context, the earlier description could be taken to mean that the balrog's form was hidden in shadow (presumably self generated). Only when the balrogs steps forward and spreads them to you see the actual wings. Personally, I lean towards balrogs having wings, but I think the passage is ambiguous as it stands so it really comes down to a matter of opinion.

As you said earlier, the presence of wings does not automatically mean the power of flight. There are certainly flightless animals in the real world who possess wings.


----------



## Durin's Bane

Yeah, cause he has already qualified them as "shadow wings" or "wings of shadow", so why repeat himself?


----------



## Greenwood

Durin's Bane said:


> Yeah, cause he has already qualified them as "shadow wings" or "wings of shadow", so why repeat himself?


Why not just say "it's shadow was spread from wall to wall" if all Tolkien meant was a shadow? And look at the sentence: "It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and it's wings were spread from wall to wall". Everything else in the sentence is the balrog actively doing something -- it steps forward, it raises itself up -- but then suddenly we switch to something insubstantial such as its shadow. Why not consider that Tolkien is still describing something the balrog is actively doing -- it spreads it's wings.


----------



## Durin's Bane

Greenwood said:


> Why not just say "it's shadow was spread from wall to wall" if all Tolkien meant was a shadow?


Because tha shadow had the form of wings and that's my point: there isn't just shadow behind him or just wings- there was a great shadow in the form of vast wings and no one can tell whether there were realy wings in that shadow!!!


----------



## Alatar

I am undecieded, actually, i think that the qoutes mean it had wings.
And as for flying, would wings made of shadow and flame actually help, i do not think so .


----------



## Ingwë

Durin's Bane said:


> Because tha shadow had the form of wings and that's my point: there isn't just shadow behind him or just wings- there was a great shadow in the form of vast wings and no one can tell whether there were realy wings in that shadow!!!


The Shadow has the form of Wings? I think that is impossible. The Shadow is the Balrog on the ground  and what do you think are the Wings in that Shadow? Are they the hands of the Balrog?


----------



## Durin's Bane

Ok, the balrog jumped over the fire, which means that the source of light would be behind him, but he is not great enough to fill the whole hall, so how come the shadow spreads from wall to wall? He can command it to take any form he wishes!


----------



## Ingwë

Durin's Bane said:


> Ok, the balrog jumped over the fire, which means that the source of light would be behind him, but he is not great enough to fill the whole hall, so how come the shadow spreads from wall to wall? He can command it to take any form he wishes!


 
Yes, the Balrog is not big enough but he was too busy with Gandalf? He had no time to take forms.


----------



## Durin's Bane

(offtopic- nice avatar!!!)
I believe he was busy with Gandalf on the bridge, not in the hall, I believe he was busy scaring his oponents there, meaning making the shadows take offensive and fearful form (of wings). And he did the same on the bridge. Influence fear by making the shadows look like wings and thus achieving an even greater form, that would normaly encumber him.


----------



## Greenwood

Durin's Bane said:


> Because tha shadow had the form of wings and that's my point: there isn't just shadow behind him or just wings- there was a great shadow in the form of vast wings and no one can tell whether there were realy wings in that shadow!!!


When you say "no one can tell whether there were realy wings in that shadow", I guess you are agreeing with me when I said the passage is ambiguous.


----------



## Ingwë

> (offtopic- nice avatar!!!)
> I believe he was busy with Gandalf on the bridge, not in the hall, I believe he was busy scaring his oponents there, meaning making the shadows take offensive and fearful form (of wings). And he did the same on the bridge. Influence fear by making the shadows look like wings and thus achieving an even greater form, that would normaly encumber him.


 
That interesting. Perhaps he wanted to scare the others. But how can he make wings? If he has wings he can make them look bigger and thus to scare the Fellowship - that is greater form. 
Indeed the Balrogs can't fly and these wings are useless but I still think they have wings.

[offtopic-thank you]

Greenwood, 1499 posts!


----------



## Alatar

Good avatar.
the shadow fill the whole hall as he want to scare them, he sences whjat gandalf is, so cuts of light to try to make him despair.


----------



## Durin's Bane

Greenwood said:


> When you say "no one can tell whether there were realy wings in that shadow", I guess you are agreeing with me when I said the passage is ambiguous.


 
Yes, all we are certain is that there was shadow all around him and something inside. I personaly believe that it was not wings and I don't see why there should be any.


----------



## Alatar

What ever we do, there is no solid proof. This can be maded worst by the fact that even is this balrog had wings, did all others? and vice versa.
but if you get a idea of how you think it looks like, then it is likely that you will stick to that imge for your own reasons. Like i have a picture of a _green_ fell beat, *shudder*


----------



## Durin's Bane

Alatar said:


> What ever we do, there is no solid proof. This can be maded worst by the fact that even is this balrog had wings, did all others? and vice versa.


I believe we can all agree on the idea that not all the balrogs looked alike (I think it was mine in the first place ) and that we have no proof what's under Durin's Bane's (mine ) shadow.


----------



## Ingwë

> I believe we can all agree on the idea that not all the balrogs looked alike (I think it was mine in the first place ) and that we have no proof what's under Durin's Bane's (mine ) shadow.


Yes, that's very good, my Bulgarian fellow. 
But we mustn't forget *Gothmog, the Lord of Balrogs. *I don't know but I think he has no wings.  
And a Balrog fight with Ecthelion but there is no info that he has wings but it ia said that Durin's bane has. They don't look alike


----------



## Alatar

I think there might be some info in the book of lost tales, but i don't know. I will have to reread it.


----------



## ingolmo

I repeat again, 'and his wings were spread from wall to wall' means his shadow spread from wall to wall. The shadow is being compared to and called 'wings'.
It's a literary effect, you know.


----------



## Hammersmith

ingolmo said:


> I repeat again, 'and his wings were spread from wall to wall' means his shadow spread from wall to wall. The shadow is being compared to and called 'wings'.
> It's a literary effect, you know.


That's neither here nor there. That's a possibility, though just as/less likely to be literal wings.

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before...but would it be a possibility that some Balrogs had wings while others did not? A subgenus of Balrog, or even privilege granted to certain spirits above others? Or is that just silly?


----------



## Durin's Bane

Hammersmith said:


> I'm not sure if this has been discussed before...but would it be a possibility that some Balrogs had wings while others did not? A subgenus of Balrog, or even privilege granted to certain spirits above others? Or is that just silly?


I raised the matter a few pages before. Who says all the balrogs look alike? Some may even have wings not as a privilege but just because they look cool on their back.
Hm, if that is the case and we were all balrogs here then there would be 223 winged and 81 wingless ones...
And since... well.. that matter is settled, we can concentrate ourselves on my case... Do I have wings or no? (hm, we can even change the name of the topic... cause that's basicaly what we would kill each other about...)


----------



## ingolmo

No, I don't think so. Morgoth wouldn't have wanted some Balrogs with wings and some without wings, unless it was a matter of rank. The high-rank once getting wings. Still, I don't think that that's true, and I still stick to my original assumptions. 
And, that's *100* posts for me!!!   YAY ME!!!


----------



## Ingwë

Why do you think that Durin's Bane has no wings? Why do you think it is literaly effect? It is said that the Balrogs _*have*_ Wings. It is not a shadow or something else. It is said '_his wings_' not 'his shadow'.

Hehehe. 350 posts.


----------



## Durin's Bane

Ingwë said:


> It is said that the Balrogs _*have*_ Wings.


And where exactly might that be?


----------



## Ingwë

Here (again):


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


----------



## Durin's Bane

Yeah, but that's just one not all as you said. And even for that one we have:

His enemy halted again, facing him, and *the shadow about* it reached out like two vast wings.

(again)


----------



## ingolmo

You know my argument. Let's just say that if the Balrog had wings, how come he fell down? Why didn't he fly back up from the abyss to destroy the rest of the members of the fellowship? Because you can fly with wings, and you can't fly with shadows.


----------



## Ingwë

*Ingolmo,* we talk about wings but not big wings. Just Wings. The chicken has wings but it can't fly. 



> His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.


 Yeah, but _*like*_  two wings, not two wings. My quote says *its wings*


----------



## Durin's Bane

But my quote comes before yours in the book.

So it is first just a shadow which later becomes wings.


----------



## ingolmo

Yeah, the quote which Durin's bane posted came before your post, Ingwe. So first the Balrog's shadow's was compared to wings, and the second time, instead of writing, 'and it's shadow's which were like wings were spread from wall-to-wall', Tolkien took it for granted that the readers will understand that even the second time, the wings are being compared to shadows.
Duh.


----------



## Alatar

Or, the simple fact that ingolmo you try flying on wings of _flame and shadow_ not alot of air restence.
An i take ingwes quote to stand for what it is, and i trhin that wetas verison of the balrog worked.


----------



## Ingwë

Durin's Bane said:


> But my quote comes before yours in the book.
> 
> So it is first just a shadow which later becomes wings.


Yeah. I read that moment and I can't believe. But you're right! Congs my dear BG fellow!


----------



## Alatar

I am still undecided as the is no proof only a quote that the wings are not mentioned.


----------



## ingolmo

First there's Ingwe who needs convincing. Once he understands the truth, Alatar steps into his mantle. For all those who think that Balrogs have wings, read all the evidence in the last 58 pages that Balrogs do not have wings. If you fail to understand the point of 81 people, you are hopeless.


----------



## Greenwood

ingolmo said:


> First there's Ingwe who needs convincing. Once he understands the truth, Alatar steps into his mantle. For all those who think that Balrogs have wings, read all the evidence in the last 58 pages that Balrogs do not have wings. If you fail to understand the point of 81 people, you are hopeless.


Your "evidence" consists of a single ambiguous quote, often coupled with the argument that if the balrog had wings it should be able to fly. However, as has been pointed out many times, there are many creatures in the real world who possess wings who cannot fly so that argument proves nothing. Your latest argument seems to be that 81 people taking part in this poll accept your view. You conveniently fail to mention the 224 people (an almost 3 to 1 margin) who do not accept your view. The numbers of people for or against the position proves nothing.

The passage in LOTR is ambiguous and the question of wings on the balrog is going to remain a matter of opinion barring the discovery of some clear statement in Tolkien's own words.


----------



## Hammersmith

Greenwood has the right of it. Whether the Balrog could fly or not is an entirely different kettle of fish, whether the chasm was too narrow, the Balrog too surprised, perhaps it planned on falling with Gandalf where it would have space to fight? That isn't proof by any means.

Likewise, the word "wings" without "like wings" when both passages refer to the same thing is confusing, but in context could point either way. I don't see any reason to guess that the wings changed between literal and ethereal. No reason at all.


----------



## Durin's Bane

It was first a shadow (first part of the quote) and then it took the form of wings (second part). So at first the balrog didn't have any, then he made himself a pair to look scarier, not to fly with them. How about that? He can either have or don't, it's entirely his choice.


----------



## Hammersmith

Either they do or they don't. No compromise. And I still say he does.


----------



## Ingwë

Why do you think that if the Balrog has wings it must fly?  
The real wings can be small.

<<<<<Update>>>>>
I agree with Durin's Bane. Look at the Lord of the Rings, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum or see Balrog's qoute. First: shadow like two wings and next his Two vast wings...


----------



## Durin's Bane

This is getting ridiculous!!! It's obvious that we cannot convince each other!!! I give up before the fight starts. Will be back when a new and solid argument is found in support of one of the statements. Until then my position remains unchanged.


----------



## Alatar

Youcan not prove it either way, the best is a quote that say's his shadow was like wings, it never says either way.
Durins bane, i'm out too.


----------



## ingolmo

The wings were not small, they spread from one wall of Moria to another. 
So much for your quote.


----------



## Alatar

*Why the quote dosn't work.*

The quote dosn't work as it could be saying that the shadow is the wings, or that his wings spread from wall to wall, a theink tha latter is right but i have no proof or reason so it is a matter of opinion.


----------



## Ingwë

ingolmo said:


> The wings were not small, they spread from one wall of Moria to another.
> So much for your quote.


Read my last posts. It is a shadow, not Wings.


----------



## Greenwood

Ingwë said:


> Read my last posts. It is a shadow, not Wings.


In your opinion.


----------



## Ingwë

Durin's Bane said:


> It was first a shadow (first part of the quote) and then it took the form of wings (second part). So at first the balrog didn't have any, then he made himself a pair to look scarier, not to fly with them. How about that? He can either have or don't, it's entirely his choice.


Greenwood, he's right.


----------



## Alatar

I ment to leave this thread, but ingwe i think durins banes right to.


----------



## ingolmo

So, Durin's Bane and _I_, as some have forgotten, have managed to convince everyone but Greenwood. So, Balrogs have wings that can retract to nothing and to the size of the walls of Moria, you mean to say. As I have said earlier, Tolkien was using a literary effect, comparing the Balrog's shadow to wings. He meant to show that the Balrog's size was so large, that his shadow spread like two huge wings. 
Does anyone have The Letters of JRR Tolkien, there might be something explained well over there.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Those who have been 'convinced' by your arguments, need to recheck this whole thread from beginning to end, to see that the myriad pro et contra arguments have been refuted countless times. There _is_ no definite solution to this question, whether in the _Letters_ or elsewhere.


----------



## ingolmo

I think it is, and that it's quite clear in the chapter, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum. Check out the quotes posted by Durin's Bane and me in the last couple of pages. 
Or, check out Gothmog's avatar. _It_ doesn't have wings.


----------



## Laire

I always used to think that balrogs don't have wings, the whole image doesn't seem very flyable... But is it possible that there were different kinds of balrogs - with and without wings? Or different stages of their development (like caterpillar and butterfly)? If yes, then both versions are correct.


----------



## ingolmo

We've already gone through this argument before, and decided that that is probably not true.


----------



## Laire

Then I still insist they didn't Surely, IMHO. But really interesting if they could fly (probably, the wings are not necesserily required for it...)


----------



## ingolmo

You're talking as if they're supernatural beings, which they probably are. interesting issue, but I think that we should stay on-topic.


----------



## Lantarion

ingolmo said:


> You're talking as if they're supernatural beings, which they probably are. interesting issue, but I think that we should stay on-topic.


I'd say Maiar are 'supernatural' by definition, wouldn't you?


----------



## Ithrynluin

ingolmo said:


> I think it is, and that it's quite clear in the chapter, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum. Check out the quotes posted by Durin's Bane and me in the last couple of pages.



Your arguments hold as much, or as little, water as do most Balrog wings arguments. It's one thing to hold a belief, or a preferrence, one way or another, and it is quite alright to discuss which arguments are more feasible and which are more far-fetched, but it's completely futile to claim any certainty in this matter.

You might be interested in checking out a FAQ on this issue: this is a great one, and it contains links to other FAQs as well.


----------



## Greenwood

ingolmo said:


> So, Durin's Bane and _I_, as some have forgotten, have managed to convince everyone but Greenwood. So, Balrogs have wings that can retract to nothing and to the size of the walls of Moria, you mean to say. As I have said earlier, Tolkien was using a literary effect, comparing the Balrog's shadow to wings. He meant to show that the Balrog's size was so large, that his shadow spread like two huge wings.
> Does anyone have The Letters of JRR Tolkien, there might be something explained well over there.


So you have convinced everyone but me? Why is your side losing in the poll by nearly 3 to 1? 

BTW, I have looked in The Letters of JRR Tolkien. There is nothing relevant there. Ithrynluin is correct that this debate cannot be resolved (barring someone finding some long lost scrap of Tolkien's writings that directly addresses the issue). Given the available evidence, it all comes down to personal opinion.


----------



## Arvedui

Ithrynluin said:


> Your arguments hold as much, or as little, water as do most Balrog wings arguments. It's one thing to hold a belief, or a preferrence, one way or another, and it is quite alright to discuss which arguments are more feasible and which are more far-fetched, but it's completely futile to claim any certainty in this matter.
> 
> You might be interested in checking out a FAQ on this issue: this is a great one, and it contains links to other FAQs as well.


Thank you very much for that link, ithy. A very good deduction of the "problem."

Although it don't give a full answer to the question.


----------



## Ingwë

Greenwood said:


> So you have convinced everyone but me? Why is your side losing in the poll by nearly 3 to 1?
> BTW, I have looked in The Letters of JRR Tolkien. There is nothing relevant there. Ithrynluin is correct that this debate cannot be resolved (barring someone finding some long lost scrap of Tolkien's writings that directly addresses the issue). Given the available evidence, it all comes down to personal opinion.


 I debated about the Wings with my friends... Well, they told me that once Tolkien said that they have Wings but later he said that they don't have. So this is endless thread. We can only speculate using the information that we don't have. 

But Ithy's link is very useful. It disproves some of the most popular proofs that the Balrogs have Wings.



Arvedui said:


> Although it don't give a full answer to the question.


 Yes, I agree


----------



## Greenwood

Ingwë said:


> But Ithy's link is very useful. It disproves some of the most popular proofs that the Balrogs have Wings.


It also shoots down the most popular arguments that the balrogs don't have wings. 

Wings are just a matter of opinion.


----------



## Fugitive1992

Balrogs do have wings!

for if you who have seen the movie Fellowship of the Ring then you would remember that in Moria when the Balrog spred out his wings and screamed. AHHHH.


----------



## Gothmog

It does not matter what is put in the films as that is only the view of someone else. The only evidence that matters in this thread comes from the writing of JRR Tolkien.


----------



## Celebthôl

Gothmog said:


> It does not matter what is put in the films as that is only the view of someone else. The only evidence that matters in this thread comes from the writing of JRR Tolkien.



Come on people i've said it before, more than once! Listen to Mr. Gothmog, he is after all the lord of all balrogs 
They had shadows that certainly looked like wings, no one doubts that, but they couldnt fly with them...


----------



## Fugitive1992

This is true. 
​


----------



## Noldor_returned

I think that some do and some dont. The one Gandalf fights does, but some of the earlier ones didnt. I also think the only person qualified to say is JRR Tolkien, but hes dead, so, bad luck.


----------



## Majimaune

tolkien does not exactly say that they have wings or not and i think that most people who have voted are influence by the movie in which they have wings​
thats a good piont that only tolkien can say if they do or they dont but he is dead


Noldor_returned said:


> I think that some do and some dont. The one Gandalf fights does, but some of the earlier ones didnt. I also think the only person qualified to say is JRR Tolkien, but hes dead, so, bad luck.


 
​


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Are we still on _this???_ I thought I'd settled it two years ago: Balrogs have ONE WING growing out of their spine! _Sheeeeeeessss!_ 

Barley

Pleathe thir, may I have my orange thkin now, pothibly ath a belated birthday prethent? Pretty pleathe with thtrawberrieth on top? Even orangeth...


----------



## Fugitive1992

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Are we still on _this???_ I thought I'd settled it two years ago: Balrogs have ONE WING growing out of their spine! _Sheeeeeeessss!_
> 
> Barley
> 
> Pleathe thir, may I have my orange thkin now, pothibly ath a belated birthday prethent? Pretty pleathe with thtrawberrieth on top? Even orangeth...


 
One wing? Thats odd. You can't fly with only one wing..then again....balrogs CAN'T fly! thats not cool


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Fugitive1992 said:


> One wing? Thats odd. You can't fly with only one wing..then again....balrogs CAN'T fly! thats not cool



It's not odd, it's the *Superlatively Elegant and Logical Compromise* between those who scream for no wings and those who scream for two. 

Barley


----------



## Majimaune

i say some do some dont
but who cares what i say keep on ging with this debate


----------



## Gothmog

Majimaune said:


> i say some do some dont
> but who cares what i say keep on ging with this debate


Well you care. What others care about is not a problem


----------



## Durin's Bane

Are we actually still barking over the old arguments?


----------



## Gothmog

Durin's Bane said:


> Are we actually still barking over the old arguments?


Woof Woof Woof

Or to put it another way:

Yes


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Wow, I come back after a year and this thread is _still_ going? Honestly, hasn't the point been exausted? Every concievable argument has be argued, including the truly brilliant one-winged argument (way to find the middle ground, Barliman). I mean, even this post about the point being exausted has already been posted (and maybe by me, I can't remember). I guess everyone needs to give their own two bits. In fact, it was so irresistable that I couldn't help but reiterate a few important points:

1) Balrogs have wings, whether made of shadow or not, with which they can fly

2) Everyone who disagrees is stupid 

I mean, think about it: if you were a demon of some sort, wouldn't _you_ want to have wings? I mean, how cool would it be to have wings? And, as stated in the _Silmarilion_, all the Valar and Maiar chose their own forms. So the question is, what would _you_ choose?


----------



## Ingwë

> 1) Balrogs have wings, whether made of shadow or not, with which they can fly


Are you sure that they will fly if the wings are made of shadow?Of course they _will not_ fly 



> I mean, think about it: if you were a demon of some sort, wouldn't _you_ want to have wings? I mean, how cool would it be to have wings? And, as stated in the _Silmarilion_, all the Valar and Maiar chose their own forms. So the question is, what would _you_ choose?


Yes, I would want to have wings but if I was a Balrog I wouldn't have wings  The Valar and the Maiar can choose their own form but the Balrogs are corrupted by Melkor. I don't think that he asked them 'Do you want to have wings'. He just create them and I think that they lost part of their power. If they didn't they would change their shape whenever they want; they wouldn't.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Khôr’nagan said:


> I mean, think about it: if you were a demon of some sort, wouldn't you want to have wings? I mean, how cool would it be to have wings? And, as stated in the Silmarilion, all the Valar and Maiar chose their own forms. So the question is, what would you choose?



There may have been some restrictions as regards flight. Why else don't we see any winged Ainur, with the exception of Sauron who briefly took the shape of a bat? You may be interested in the following thread.

Why all the trouble with locating Gondolin? Creatures as mighty as winged Balrogs could surely fly high up into the sky and espy the fair city from afar?

Very nice to see you again!


----------



## Gothmog

Khôr’nagan said:


> I mean, think about it: if you were a demon of some sort, wouldn't _you_ want to have wings? I mean, how cool would it be to have wings? And, as stated in the _Silmarilion_, all the Valar and Maiar chose their own forms. So the question is, what would _you_ choose?


Personally I would not want such useless apendages. They would get in the way and make the Balrog look like a clown.

I am quite happy with my wingless and terrifying Balrogs with their shadow of unlight.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Ingwë said:


> Are you sure that they will fly if the wings are made of shadow?Of course they _will not_ fly
> 
> Yes, I would want to have wings but if I was a Balrog I wouldn't have wings  The Valar and the Maiar can choose their own form but the Balrogs are corrupted by Melkor. I don't think that he asked them 'Do you want to have wings'. He just create them and I think that they lost part of their power. If they didn't they would change their shape whenever they want; they wouldn't.



Well, since the Balrogs are made of shadow and fire, it only makes sense that if their wings, too, were made of shadow and fire, they would be able to fly with them. I mean, the only reason they wouldn't would be if the air simply passed through their wings, but if they passed through the wings, that would mean that things could pass through the Balrog's body, too, and that is certainly not true.

Furthermore, Melkor corrupted them, yes, but he didn't create them, and they had the ability to choose their own forms independent of him. As to limitations in their ablitity to choose forms, it is well-known that Tolkien changed a lot of things from his earlier works to his later works, including Balrogs. For one thing, several of the Balrogs who attacked Gondolin were slain by Elves, unless I recall incorrectly, in one on one combat, not to mention the fact that their were so many of them. The Balrogs are later revised to number less than ten, I believe, and those more powerful than anything previously described. It is concieveable to believe that Tolkien, when revising the Balrogs, changed more than their physical abilities, but their appearance as well. And, since the Fellowship of the Ring constitutes the final piece in which Balrogs were described and that in the book the Balrog is said to have wings, I believe suffiecient evidence exists to say that Tolkien very likely added the wings in after all the stuff he wrote about the histories.

And all this is based upon the assumption that the Balrogs cannot change their forms like other Maiar and Valar, and also the possibility that the several Balrogs, having been individual beings from the start, may not have chosen identical appearances, but rather merely similar ones, and some of them choosing wings while others might not. The Balrog described in LotR very well may have been the only one with wings, and they chose not to use it to find Gondolin because the Elves would know they were threatened if they chanced to look up and see this huge, burning monster flying in the sky. If it could see them, they could see it, after all.


----------



## Gothmog

A nice theory. However, it is based on one very inconclusive (delibiratly so in my opinon) passage. 

I still believe that whatever image Tolkien had for His Balrog, he did everything he could to prevent us from knowing what it was.


----------



## Ingwë

> Well, since the Balrogs are made of shadow and fire, it only makes sense that if their wings, too, were made of shadow and fire, they would be able to fly with them. I mean, the only reason they wouldn't would be if the air simply passed through their wings, but if they passed through the wings, that would mean that things could pass through the Balrog's body, too, and that is certainly not true.


If we can trust *The Encyclopedia of Arda:*_



Balrogs were spirits of fire - their hearts were of fire, we are told, and they carried whips of flame. They could, however, shroud themselves in darkness and shadow. The Balrog that Gandalf fought in Moria, for example, at first gave no hint of his fiery nature apart from the flames that issued from his nostrils. In appearance, the Balrogs were man-like, but fire streamed from them, and they were swathed in dark shadows. 

Click to expand...

_Here is the link: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.asp?url=http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/alphae.html
The Shadows are not solid. They don't have three dimentions. They are something that exist is the plane. That is in the real world, our world. What about the world of J. R. R. Tolkien? I don't think that it is much more different. 

From *The Encyclopedia of Arda: *
*A Quick Digression: What is ‘Shadow’?*


> _Where Balrogs are concerned, their 'shadow' isn't just a lack of light, but a region of darkness that they carry around with them. Exactly what its qualities are is a debatable point, but it can certainly flow into different shapes. These shadow-shapes, in fact, form the beginning of the whole debate._


I don't think that the shadows of the Balrogs are something more than darkness around them. Ungoliant....
_



A cloak of darkness she wove about them when Melkor and Ungoliant set forth; an Unlight, in which things seemed to be no more, and which eyes could not pierce, for it was void. (Silmarilion)

Click to expand...

_It is a cloak of Darkness, it is not Shadow, just a void. Ok. But it hides her. I think that the Darkness that the Balrogs carry around them is just... a Darkness, it is not a form of life, it is not a part of their body like our skin. It seems that they have similar functions (skin and shadow) but we mustn't forget that the Balrogs are Maiar => they're spirits. I think I must read the Sil again... 
So I think that the Shadow around them just surrounds their body, the fire. Probably Tolkien added it to make these creatures look more evil 

*To Gothmog:* you're evil. I had been writting this post for 20 minutes when you logged in and posted reply


----------



## Gothmog

> To Gothmog: you're evil.


You noticed  

Well you put more work into your post  I agree with you about the Shadow surrounding the Balrog. While Ungoliant's Darkness completely blocked sight, I think that the Balrog's cloak of darkness is of the same type but of lesser degree,


----------



## Khôr’nagan

The Fact remains, though, that whether made of shadow or simply covered in shadow, the Balrogs are vulnerable to man-made (or I should say, Elf-made) weapons, if the Histories are to be believed. And if swords can cut them, it's not likely that air can simply pass through them, and if air can't pass through them, then their wings, if made of whatever the Balrog is made of, are capable of providing flight.

Of course, that doesn't take into account the changes Tolkien made to the Balrogs, and perhaps he made them invulnerable to the weapons of Men and Elves, but it is not likely that since every other Maia or Vala in a physical form (that is, a form that can interact with the world around them) is vulnerable to such weapons, Balrogs, who are hardly the most powerful, would be invulnerable and still be able to affect the world around them. If you say they are simply shadow and fire and cannot be harmed thus, then how are they supposed to do harm to others? And if you say they can wield fire and shadow as weapons but that weapons can't harm them, then that would be saying that Balrogs possessed abilities that not even Melkor, a Vala and one of the most powerful, possessed.

And though I don't think Tolkien went out of his way to keep us from knowing the truth of Balrogs, I must agree that he certainly did not go out of his way to let us know more about them, either, leaving them rather ambiguous and thus more frightening. Because, really, an ambiguous unknown that is potentially deadly is much more frightening than a known and understood danger, and I believe one of the main points of Balrogs was to frighten. THis point was probably raised before (if it was, I don't remember), but that's what I think Tolkien was thinking about when he concieved of the Balrogs. He may have even refrained from actually giving them a defined form in his own mind so as to portray them with more ease as ambiguous and frightening.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Well, it appears as though the Balrog/wings argument is here to stay, as it has always been. Therefore I will periodically — as I do right now — offer my most elegant compromise as to whether or not a Balrog (1) has wings or (2) has no wings. I say it has ONE wing, right down the middle of it's back! They can't fly anyway, so what's the dif? 

Barley


----------



## Helcaraxë

Let me shift the paradigm: the main question thus far is: what defines "wings?" The answer: Balrogs are mostly fire with some sort of dark shadowy substance. So to debate whether the wings are only a large extent of their non-winged shadowy bodies or whether they are actually wings is meaningless, since the two are the same. 

Interestingly, Gandalf later describes how the Balrog became a creature of "slime;" so, apparently, there was some solid material under all the father and shadow. But this doesn't undermine my above point.



Khôr’nagan said:


> since every other Maia or Vala in a physical form (that is, a form that can interact with the world around them) is vulnerable to such weapons



No, remember that Gandalf says he could not be harmed by mortal weapons when he came back as the White.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Yes, Helcaraxe, a good example of how Tolkien changed things when writing LotR. If you recall, Melkor fought one on one with Fingolfin, and though he was victorious, he recieved a limp for his troubles. Melkor, being a Vala, would not have been susceptable to such an attack and not have those weaker than him susceptable as well. Thus Olórin, a maia, would not possess greater strengths than Melkor, and so in order to work, Tolkien would have had to change things. Of course, that is to say that the other Vala didn't take some part in strengthening Olórin; perhaps they could have combined all their abilities to make Olórin immune to such base weapons. Of course, this is all conjectures and what if's. The fact is, though, Olórin still had a physical form that could be attacked, if not by ordinary weapons. 

The point of my stating that Balrogs are vulnerable is to emphasize that in order to be able to harm others, I believe that they themselves would have to be vulnerable to attack, i.e. have a physical form that can be cut and thus having a physical form that can utilize physical wings. Immune or not, Balrogs are not simply beings through which a sword would swing as if through smoke, but rather, if they're immune, beings upon which a sword can strike and not cause harm. Again, of course, this is just my opinion, and I admit that I hold it largely because I like the idea of it better than the idea of it being otherwise. Still, I believe there is evidence, as I have stated, to support my opinions, and I stand by them.


----------



## Gothmog

I agree with Khôr’nagan. The Balrogs Tolkien's later writings were small in number (three or at most seven according to JRRT) and very powerful but vulnerable to weapons. However, in the later views of JRRT, while a Balrog was vulnerable it was only the greatest of the Elven Warriors that could exploit this and even then only (it would seem) at the cost of their own lives (Ecthelion v. Gothmog and Glorfindel in the mountains). Thus Gandalf told the fellowship that Durin's Bane was to great for them to fight. In the battle even Gandalf could only defeat Durin's Bane at the cost of his own life.

I belive that the reason some think of the Balrog with a body made of only Shadow and flame comes from a description given by Aragorn to Galadriel and Celeborn.


> _From The Mirror of Galadriel_
> Then Aragorn recounted all that had happened upon the pass of Caradhras, and in the days that followed; and he spoke of Balin and his book, and the fight in the Chamber of Mazarbul, and the fire, and the narrow bridge, and the coming of the Terror. 'An evil of the Ancient World it seemed, such as I have never seen before,' said Aragorn. `It was both a shadow and a flame, strong and terrible.'


He was speaking of what impressions he had from seeing it.


----------



## Arvedui

I don't find it reasonable to state that Balrogs aren't made from some solid form. Take for instance Melkor, who when having spent a lot of his power, were unable to change form again. And, as was mentioned above, was subject to being wounded. After the fight with Fingolfin, he hid in his mansion, and never fought again.
Now, the balrogs are minor to Melkor in might, and has probably never done anyting positive while they have existed. Why should they be made out of "coloured air?"

Concerning wings: the only passages where there is a diract reference to any wings, is from _The Bridge of Khazad-dûm,_ where it is stated that


> the shadow about it reached out like two wings.


This refers to the previous description of the Balrog:


> What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater;


So when


> its wings were spread from wall,


 the "wings" in question are the shadow that is a part of its form, not wings per se.


----------



## Wolfshead

I don't know what all the debate's about, to be honest. Surely Ralph Bakshi's cartoon provides all the evidence needed?


----------



## Búrzghâsh

pssshhh of course they don't! if they had wings the balrog would never have fallen when gandalf broke the bridge of Khazad-Dum


----------



## Thorondor_

> I don't find it reasonable to state that Balrogs aren't made from some solid form. Take for instance Melkor, who when having spent a lot of his power, were unable to change form again. And, as was mentioned above, was subject to being wounded. After the fight with Fingolfin, he hid in his mansion, and never fought again.
> Now, the balrogs are minor to Melkor in might, and has probably never done anyting positive while they have existed. Why should they be made out of "coloured air?"


I agree; as Gandalf says of the balrog in The white rider, TTT:


> Yet it has a bottom, beyond light and knowledge, said Gandalf. Thither I came at last, to the uttermost foundations of stone. He was with me still. His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

Yeah, I am actually just re-reading the Lord of the Rings, and I saw that the other day and was like, "Yeah, that would have been all I needed to prove they were solid, if I had remembered..." But anyway, that point standing, as I've stated before, had they any wings, they would likely as not be just as solid as them, and they would be able to fly with them. And since I believe that they definitely have wings, in my reasoning their is little doubt they have wings (or at least, less doubt than surety). But Balrogs dwell in the deep dark places of the world, in the deepest and darkest dungeons, and in such places flight is impractical, so they probably didn't have much strength in their wings, and could probably only fly short distances, if at all, without stretching them out and exercising them and what not, just as a man who doesn't use his legs for a long time wouldn't be able to walk until he exercised them and allowed them to return to their former strength. That's why the Balrog wouldn't have flown in Khazad-dum when it fell down the pit. I admit, however, that from the description of the Valaraukar (I use the Quenya name because it's just so badass) in the histories, it seems fairly clear that Tolkien did not imagine them with wings at that time, but rather, in my belief, changed his mind while writing the LotR and endowed them with wings. Because never previously is their any mention of anything about Balrogs, not even their shadows, being anything like wings before, and the mention of them in Khazad-dum to me says that Tolkien changed his mind.


----------



## Numenor

"And it's wings were spread from wall to wall"

It doesn't get any clearer than that


----------



## Gothmog

Numenor said:


> "And it's wings were spread from wall to wall"
> 
> It doesn't get any clearer than that


As clear as the shadow which spread like wings.


----------



## Walter

Just as a sidenote: The members of the fellowship must have grown wings too, while they passed through moria. Or why else could Gandalf possibly cry out _'Fly, you fools! '_ before he fell into the abyss...


----------



## DGoeij

Walter said:


> Just as a sidenote: The members of the fellowship must have grown wings too, while they passed through moria. Or why else could Gandalf possibly cry out _'Fly, you fools! '_ before he fell into the abyss...



That's just his frame of reference. By ordering them to fly, Gandalf could convince himself he wasn't dropping. Instead, the others were merely rapidly accelerating upwards, flying.


----------



## Gothmog

DGoeij said:


> That's just his frame of reference. By ordering them to fly, Gandalf could convince himself he wasn't dropping. Instead, the others were merely rapidly accelerating upwards, flying.


So that is why he didn't go SPLAT when he reached the bottom. He just convinced himself that he did not fall down.


----------



## Walter

DGoeij said:


> That's just his frame of reference. By ordering them to fly, Gandalf could convince himself he wasn't dropping. Instead, the others were merely rapidly accelerating upwards, flying.


Oh... I see... That would explain why he himself didn't fly (other than vertically towards the bottom, that is...) 

But at least the Balrog was fair enough as not to use his own wings and just fly away... 

----



Gothmog said:


> So that is why he didn't go SPLAT when he reached the bottom.



He didn't????


----------



## DGoeij

Walter said:


> But at least the Balrog was fair enough as not to use his own wings and just fly away...



A Balrog with wings? Who gave you that crazy idea?  

At least we know for certain the Balrog went SPLAT when the fellowship flew out of sight. I mean, Gandalf mentioned struggling through a thick layer of slime.

My apologies for going off topic. I blame Walter.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Wolfshead said:


> I don't know what all the debate's about, to be honest. Surely Ralph Bakshi's cartoon provides all the evidence needed?



To say nothing of PJ's... But I still say that Balrogs have ONE wing growing out of their spine, which ripples like the sides of a manta ray...

Barley


----------



## Alcuin

Wolfshead said:


> I don't know what all the debate's about, to be honest. Surely Ralph Bakshi's cartoon provides all the evidence needed?


 Little known correction to the text as first printed:


> The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its big fuzzy slippers were spread from wall to wall...


----------



## Ermundo

I always imagined Balrogs with wings personally. But I know that when Ungoliath had Morgoth entangled in her webs, Morgoth summoned the Balrogs to come to his aid. They traveled at speeds equal to fire from Angband but I don't think that it says anything about a Balrog flying.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

As long as we're not really discussing the topic can I just say that I'm pretty sure that we'll all keep our own ideas on this one?

But at least we can settle on one thing: Balrogs were definitely pink!


----------



## Fugitive1992

PINK! says who. they said it's 'the dark shadow fo the flames'
not pink.


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Fugitive1992 said:


> PINK! says who. they said it's 'the dark shadow fo the flames'
> not pink.



Ah yes, I can see why you think that. That quote is often misprinted. It should read: 'The dark shadow of the _pink_ flames.'

 

(Of course I am just kidding! I was trying to be funny! I don't really think balrogs are pink!)


----------



## Khôr’nagan

> Of course I am just kidding! I was trying to be funny! I don't really think balrogs are pink!



You don't!? Then you mean to say, all this time I've been the only one?



> As long as we're not really discussing the topic can I just say that I'm pretty sure that we'll all keep our own ideas on this one?



Well, that's true for the most part, but I for one have a modified opinion from that which I originally possessed: That Balrogs in the pre-LotR writings didn't have wings, but that Tolkien toyed with the possibility that they did when writing LotR and left it wague intentionally to leave his options open. My previous belief was that they had wings, period.

Admittedly, though, I'll never say they didn't have wings, so there are always limits.


----------



## Withywindle

If a Balrog has wings, how the hell did it

a) fall into the abyss
b) Not fly off the peak of Zirak Zigil in order to escape Gandalf as plainly it was trying to do
c) Die by being cast off the peak and bouncing off the mountain side on the way down
d) Fall to its death off a precipice in Gondolin together with Glorfindel
e) Not get mentioned at any time in the Silmarillion or elsewhere being aloft


----------



## Wolfshead

Withywindle said:


> If a Balrog has wings, how the hell did it
> 
> a) fall into the abyss
> b) Not fly off the peak of Zirak Zigil in order to escape Gandalf as plainly it was trying to do
> c) Die by being cast off the peak and bouncing off the mountain side on the way down
> d) Fall to its death off a precipice in Gondolin together with Glorfindel
> e) Not get mentioned at any time in the Silmarillion or elsewhere being aloft


Penguins and ostriches can't fly, yet they both have wings


----------



## Withywindle

Point taken, although a Balrog would look pretty silly if it had little flappy wings like an ostrich


----------



## Khôr’nagan

As has been stated before, some creatures who can fly need a running start; it's hard to get a running start when a bridge falls out from beneath you, or when some annoying pest is swinging a sword and shooting lightening in your face. And that's assuming it was running from Gandalf once it got to Zirak Zigil; Who's to say it didn't run there simply for the choice of battleground, like an army that runs to god terrain then turns and fights their pursuers. And as to how it died by falling from the peak, it was stricken dead _then_ fell off the peak and smote the mountain side in its ruin. Last time I checked, when you throw a dead bird off a mountain, it doesn't start to fly as it falls.

And I've already stated that I believe the Balrogs in older writings did not have wings, but even if I did, falling off a cliff with a High Elf swinging a sword in your face is not conducive to a good, easy flight. And who's to say it could fly with an Elvish warrior clinging to it? A Balrog is a creature of shadow and flame; how much does that weigh? How much does any Maia weigh? According to Gwaihir, when he picked up Gandalf after the battle of Zirak Zigil when Gandalf had been returned as a full Maia (as opposed to a Maia sewn into a human body), Gandalf was as light as a feather, and was no burden to lift. Maybe the wings on the Balrog were designed to support their own small weight, and a 200 pound Elvish warrior is just too much to support. And according to most pro-wingers, the historical texts do mention Balrogs flying; just not as clearly as they could.

And another idea. At some point, Morgoth _did_ learn the secret of flight, and bestowed it upon the Flying Dragons, which were first seen in the battle against the Valar at the end of the First Age. Who's to say that, learning of the secret, he did not teach the Balrogs how to fly as well? Of course, once an Ainu is accustomed to one form, it is difficult, if not impossible, to change it, and it very well may have taken the Balrogs years before they could adapt their bodies accordingly, which would explain away why they weren't said to be flying in the afformentioned battle; but when you've got, oh, 6,500 years to sit alone in a dark cave in the deepest reaches of the earth, you have an awfully long bit of spare time on your hands, wouldn't you say?

The tiresome thing about this debate is that, regardless of any point you make, there's always a counterpoint....


----------



## Withywindle

It is indeed impossible to resolve the argument. I suggest two compromises:

1) That Balrogs were not all identical. Whilst being of a kind "shadow and flame and whips" etc. there may have been some variation - some with horns, some with tails and some with wings. As to whether Durin´s Bane was one of the ones with wings .....(!?)

2) Despite the weight of evidence against Balrogs having wings, I together with the pro-wingers accept that Balrogs look better with wings. It one of the few instances where the "artistic license" practised by Tolkien artists has improved on whatever Tolkien´s original idea was. If anyone remembers Citadel Miniatures´ vignette of The Bridge of Khazad Dum (I had it in the late 80´s don´t know if it´s still around) theirs was the definitive Balrog, complete with wings. So the Balrog has aquired wings _ad hoc _whether Tolkien meant it to or no.


----------



## Noldor_returned

I thought we went through this ages ago. The earlier Balrogs didn't, and the more recent ones did. Done. Solved. Stop arguing.


----------



## Majimaune

Emus can't fly either you know!
But it it's a long thread and something should be dicided in the end (which will probebly be the end of the website) so lets just do what Barly said: They have one wing in the middle of the back so that they can't fly.
Now heres an addition of my own (well not exactly mine it's Wonko the Sane's)... THEY ARE *PINK*!!!!!!!!!!!
It suits everyone and is better cause if they can't fly then they may as well have one wing and if they had two then the people who where saying they had WINGS (theres and S there) and the people who where saying they dont have WINGS (theres also a S there) have a compromise.

There have fun trying to understand what I just said with all that if you didn't understand it I'm not going to explain.


----------



## Khôr’nagan

This debate END!? The world as we know it will sooner self-destruct.

As exciting Barliman's ability to reach the middle-ground is in this issue, it doesn't help anyone, since only you crazies will believe such a ridiculous idea (said with affection, mind you  ).

Noldor Returned has had some experience debating this issue, clearly (it's like the madness that comes upon men who can Channel in the Wheel of Time; you never know how long it will take, but if you keep debating this issue, you eventually snap  ).

I too agree, Windywindle, that Balrogs look better with wings; without them, they're like oversized trolls or something, which isn't nearly as cool. And I support the idea that Balrogs were different (why would different entities all look the same? That's just lame). However, you have to admit that no amount of evidence, save unless Tolkien himself speaks from beyond the grave to either confirm or deny our arguments, that can confirm or deny any of our theories; as it happens, I like my new theory very much, and find it very attractive.


----------



## Noldor_returned

You don't get it do you. I'm almost asleep!
(If anyone can link this to this petty argument, you deserve something)


----------



## Wonko The Sane

Withywindle said:


> If a Balrog has wings, how the hell did it
> 
> a) fall into the abyss
> b) Not fly off the peak of Zirak Zigil in order to escape Gandalf as plainly it was trying to do
> c) Die by being cast off the peak and bouncing off the mountain side on the way down
> d) Fall to its death off a precipice in Gondolin together with Glorfindel
> e) Not get mentioned at any time in the Silmarillion or elsewhere being aloft



So all creatures with wings can fly then? Wow. I'll go run and tell the chickens and the ostriches.

Furthermore, even if they could fly it doesn't mean that they'd want to do it all the time. Second of all, they're very large and perhaps flying took too much energy out of them and in the situations you mentioned they were too tired to fly.

And the Sil only mentions hobbits (Periannath, Halflings) in the account of the rings of power and there it doesn't describe them at all. Are we therefore to assume that all that we read about Hobbits in LotR isn't true because the Sil doesn't back it up?



Withywindle said:


> Point taken, although a Balrog would look pretty silly if it had little flappy wings like an ostrich



Have you ever _seen_ an ostrich? They have HUGE wings, they can't fly because their bodies are too big and their bones aren't hollow. Same with chickens. Their wings are large for their body size. It's not like they're walking around with tiny little fly wings attached to their bird bodies or something.  



Noldor_returned said:


> I thought we went through this ages ago. The earlier Balrogs didn't, and the more recent ones did. Done. Solved. Stop arguing.



Oh, right. Like you have the final word and we'll just stop because you say so.  

And it does stand to reason that all balrogs were different. It's clear that dragons were different. They are the same kind of creatures with similar attributes, but they're not all identical. And there are different species of dragons as well. Why not of balrogs? Which, of course, does not rule out my theory of a pink balrog. I mean, The Sil doesn't ever mention it, but I think we've proven The Sil doesn't have the final word on everything.

As for the wings debate, it's clear they did have wings. I mean, I just re-watched that section of FotR and that balrog DEFINITELY had wings. I saw them. AND he used them. So yous all are wrong.


----------



## Eledhwen

This particular Balrog seems to have spent not a few aeons underground. Even if his wings were supposed to be useful, how useful would they be with so little exercise? Let's see - he plunges into an abyss when the bridge gives way, plunges into deep water where he gets thoroughly slimed, then ends up at the top of a long stair from where Gandalf smites his ruin. Not a lot of opportunity to stretch his wings, methinks, even if they are more than some shadowy stuff that wouldn't lift a dragonfly.


----------



## Withywindle

I´ve thought of a 3rd compromise:

The Balrog, as it appeared to Frodo, was wreathed in shadow, right? To the extent that its form was indistinct. Now Frodo (he wrote down the account in Red Book of Westmarch after all) saw what he thought might be wings, but might have been an illusion of the shadows, so really both possibilites exist simultaneously.

Therefore, The Balrog is like a giant _Schroedinger´s Cat: _whilst inside the shadow the possibility of having wings and not having wings are both equally true, only when it emerged from the shadow would we know, but as Frodo never sees that, the Balrog for us, is both winged and wingless.


----------



## Starbrow

What a great solution, Withywindle.

BOTH SIDES ARE RIGHT.  Schroedinger's Cat can be used to solve every debate.


----------



## Durin's Bane

Eledhwen said:


> Let's see - he plunges into an abyss when the bridge gives way, plunges into deep water where he gets thoroughly slimed, then ends up at the top of a long stair from where Gandalf smites his ruin.


Which makes another point- why didn't he fly up but fell down in the abyss?And when he was loosing it to Gandalf on the peak why didn't he fly away to safety?
Meaning- he didn't have wings to do it!


----------



## Ithrynluin

Durin's Bane said:


> Which makes another point- why didn't he fly up but fell down in the abyss?And when he was loosing it to Gandalf on the peak why didn't he fly away to safety?
> Meaning- he didn't have wings to do it!



Or was simply too exhausted to use them. Did you know it's quite difficult for larger birds to leave ground? It takes a considerable amount of effort.


----------



## Durin's Bane

Ithrynluin said:


> Or was simply too exhausted to use them.


On the peak, ok, he was. But falling in the abyss? I don't see what could have exhausted him... Walking?


----------



## Ithrynluin

Durin's Bane said:


> On the peak, ok, he was. But falling in the abyss? I don't see what could have exhausted him... Walking?



How about the intense and energy-draining battle with Glorfindel?


----------



## Durin's Bane

Ithrynluin said:


> How about the intense and energy-draining battle with Glorfindel?


 
??? ???


----------



## Ithrynluin

Oh, sorry, I didn't get at once which balrog you were referring to. The balrog falling into the Moria pit? Why, didn't he cast a powerful spell earlier that almost destroyed Gandalf? And he confronted Gandalf on the bridge? I reckon those things were all potential flying inhibitors.


----------



## Alcuin

Withywindle said:


> ...The Balrog is like a giant _Schroedinger´s Cat_: whilst inside the shadow the possibility of having wings and not having wings are both equally true, only when it emerged from the shadow would we know, but as Frodo never sees that, the Balrog for us, is both winged and wingless.


_Schroedinger´s Balrog._ The world of modern physics trembles!


----------



## Amarie Veanne

My opinion is taht some of them had, and some didin't have wings. the moria Balrog had wings.  I voted yes...


----------



## Eledhwen

Ithrynluin said:


> I reckon those things were all potential flying inhibitors.


I hate to be pedantic (and if you believe that, you'll believe anything); but we're not discussing whether balrogs could fly, only whether they have "wings or no?"


----------



## Leveller

It's obvious that they couldn't fly or Morgoth would've found Gondolin in a minute and they wouldn't all have died from beeing thrown off of mountains. So because they couldn't fly I like to think of them as not having wings. Except for the "shadowy" kind


----------



## Eledhwen

*My latest theory....*



Leveller said:


> It's obvious that they couldn't fly or Morgoth would've found Gondolin in a minute and they wouldn't all have died from beeing thrown off of mountains. So because they couldn't fly I like to think of them as not having wings. Except for the "shadowy" kind


If Balrogs could fly, Gandalf would not have thought it worthwhile to send the Company over the Bridge of Khazad-Dûm. The bridge was the only way across, which meant there was no enemy there who could fly. The Balrog chanced the bridge, which Gandalf held; and even when Gandalf proved himself equal to the challenge, the Balrog did not fly.

The Balrog was somehow wreathed in shadow "It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it." This shadow is next mentioned when the Balrog reaches the bridge: "The Balrog reached the bridge.... and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings."

These quotes convey a picture of an overhanging shadow about the Balrog. The Balrog itself is not portrayed as bent over the fire, but the shadow about it still caused the fire's light to fade. The image of the shadow reaching out 'like two vast wings' again gives the impression of a darkness emanating from the fiery being.

This same debate goes on about angels. It is argued that the light emanating from angels appears like wings, so people mistakenly believe that angels have wings. I hypothesise that Balrogs are a type of anti-angel; and have a shadow (absence of light) performing the same illusion.


----------



## Majimaune

Wow this thread is going again.

Eledhwen, I think you have valid points. Especially about the angel/anti-angel thing.


----------



## Firawyn

Eledhwen said:


> I hate to be pedantic (and if you believe that, you'll believe anything); but we're not discussing whether balrogs could fly, only whether they have "wings or no?"



God I can't believe this thread is _still_ going!

Anyway - good point here Eledhwen. Penguins have wings, as well as chickens, and neither can fly. The question here is do they have wings.

I just re-watched all of my EE of LotR movies. Peter Jackson and the Weta guys did give the Belrog of Moria wings, I'm pretty darn certain of that. 

However, that does not mean that Tolkien intended on that. Alot of what we, a mere half a century later, percieve about his works has been proven (mostly by us TTFers! ) to be incorrect. It's kind of like that game you play at youth groups - where you sit in a circle, and the first person says one thing, and whispers to the next, and by the time the whispered sentence gets back to the first person, the sentence has changed dramaticly...most of the time very comic in it's context.


----------



## Eledhwen

Firawyn said:


> A lot of what we, a mere half a century later, perceive about his works has been proven (mostly by us TTFers! ) to be incorrect. It's kind of like that game you play at youth groups - where you sit in a circle, and the first person says one thing, and whispers to the next, and by the time the whispered sentence gets back to the first person, the sentence has changed dramaticly...most of the time very comic in it's context.


We call that Chinese whispers. Also, if a lie is repeated often enough, it will be believed. The 'lies' (variations from Tolkien's words and concepts) in the film versions can corrupt knowledge. Because most of it is accurate, the lies are insidious; and you (I) need to re-read the books to sort out the celluloid from the paper. Much of the imagery I had in my mind from reading the books has been replaced by the film images; and there's no undoing that; but at least I can replace PJ's balrog's wings with a shadow _like_ two vast wings.


----------



## Firawyn

*sigh* 'Tis on the list. I'm re-reading Unfinished Tales at the Moment, then onward to Book of Lost Tales 1 & 2, then round back to Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, then the Sil...then...humm...havn't thought that far ahead. 

I'm always reading something or other Tolkien...not like I'm going to have it all memorized anytime soon!


----------



## Gothmog

Well I for one am very happy to see this thread revived with such an interesting view on the question. 



> This same debate goes on about angels. It is argued that the light emanating from angels appears like wings, so people mistakenly believe that angels have wings. I hypothesise that Balrogs are a type of anti-angel; and have a shadow (absence of light) performing the same illusion.


Considering that Tolkien was a devout Catholic, I think that this is a very important point. I believe that in Christianity demons would be 'fallen angels and could well be seen as "anti-angels". We cannot be sure if JRRT was aware of this debate about 'Angel Wings' but it is certainly possible that this played a part in why he changed the description of the Balrog of Moria to include this shadow.

In an earlier exchange of views with another member I commented that JRRT deliberatly chose to not describe the balrog clearly to allow the reader to put their own demon into the shadow. Perhaps this was incorrect, maybe he described it exactly in that way to include this illusion.


----------



## Eledhwen

Firawyn said:


> I'm always reading something or other Tolkien...not like I'm going to have it all memorized anytime soon!


My oldest daughter had to learn the first paragraph of The Hobbit off by heart, for an English Literature lesson at school. She can do it as a party piece now.

And thanks, Gothmog. There's always something new to learn about Tolkien's work, and the angel thing only occurred to me when I read Leveller's post. I'm dreaming that someone will open a dusty old trunk in an Oxford University attic, and find a whole new treasure trove of notes answering a load of those unclosed questions.


----------



## Firawyn

Gothmog said:


> We cannot be sure if JRRT was aware of this debate about 'Angel Wings' but it is certainly possible that this played a part in why he changed the description of the Balrog of Moria to include this shadow.



Oh I wouldn't put it past him Gothmog...that sounds like a topic the Inklings would have discussed.




> My oldest daughter had to learn the first paragraph of The Hobbit off by heart, for an English Literature lesson at school. She can do it as a party piece now.



Haha! That's awesome. I'll have to go read that now. Seriously though, I have more chance of memorizing the CONarnia, by CS Lewis, that any of Tolkien's works. I've read them so many times that I can refer to a scene by book, chapter title, and chapter number!


----------



## Gothmog

Firawyn said:


> Oh I wouldn't put it past him Gothmog...that sounds like a topic the Inklings would have discussed.



I totaly agree.


----------



## Firawyn

Gothmog said:


> I totaly agree.



*tips hat* 

Let's see: What other Angles/Belrogs things might compare?





(AH! Spell check does NOT recognize Belrogs!)


----------



## Eledhwen

Hey, Galin; I got an excellent post from you on this thread via email, but here it isn't! Maybe you have taken it away for editing?


----------



## Elthir

*Re: My latest theory....*

Well, I decided I should look at the whole thread before posting, but anyway, now that you mentioned it, here's another similar version.



Eledhwen said:


> The Balrog was somehow wreathed in shadow (...) These quotes convey a picture of an overhanging shadow about the Balrog. The Balrog itself is not portrayed as bent over the fire, but the shadow about it still caused the fire's light to fade. The image of the shadow reaching out 'like two vast wings' again gives the impression of a darkness emanating from the fiery being.


 
The Shadow yes... I agree!

In the initial description (in draft) the Balrog in Moria is clearly seen -- the furnace-fire of its yellow eyes are described, its arms were very long, and it had a red tongue (Christopher Tolkien indicates some doubt as to the word 'tongue' here) -- and it has no shadow or 'wings' at this point, just like the old Balrogs. Tolkien then notes to himself: ​ 
'Alter description of Balrog. It seemed to be of man's shape, but its form could not be plainly discerned. It felt larger than it looked.' JRRT The Bridge​ 
What would obscure the creature? wings? How did Tolkien alter his former conception of Balrogs? Well, a shadow would do the trick here in my opinion, and in subsequent drafts indeed a 'darkness' enters. And we know from _The Later Quenta Silmarillion_ -- thus a description of the 'new' Balrogs -- that they were cloaked in darkness:


'... their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, and terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named...' JRRT, Later Quenta Silmarillion​

But not just a regular darkness caused by lack of light, or a cast shadow caused by a blocking of light, but a shadow that existed about the creature, making it harder to see (not _'plainly discerned'_) and more fearful. We are dealing here with a mythic creature that is beyond 'science' of course, and Tolkien has written about unsual darkness in other places, what some have called _Unlight_... ​ 
'The Light failed; and that was woe enough, but the Darkness that followed was more than loss of light. In that hour was made the Dark which seems not lack but a thing with being of its own: for it was indeed made by malice out of Light, and it had the power to pierce the eye, and to enter heart and mind, and strangle the very will.' JRRT Morgoth's Ring​ 

The description of the Moria Balrog. ​ 
'... it was like a great shadow, in the midst of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and a terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.' JRRT The Fellowship of the Ring​ 
I think Tolkien's conception at this time was that Balrogs were cloaked in darkness, which need not be a cast shadow but something Balrogs have: a 'shadow' somehow more than lack of light, similar enough perhaps to the Cloud of Ungoliant -- something obscuring the powerful demon within! 

With the Balrog in Moria one _does_ get a winged demon in a sense -- but not boring old 'regular' wings like a giant bat, rather a far more interesting idea in my opinion, that is, momentary wings of darkness -- the Demon's 'Shadow-cloak' at one point reaching out like vast wings.

My opinion anyway


----------



## Eledhwen

Galin said:


> And we know from The Later Quenta Silmarillion -- thus a description of the 'new' Balrogs -- that they were cloaked in darkness ... But not just a regular darkness caused by lack of light, or a cast shadow caused by a blocking of light, but a shadow that existed about the creature, making it harder to see (not 'plainly discerned') and more fearful.


Like Ungoliant: "There [in her ravine] she sucked up all light that she could find, and spun it forth again in dark nets of strangling gloom,"

And to aid Melkor in his quest: "A cloak of darkness she wove about them when Melkor and Ungoliant set forth: an Unlight, in which things seemed to be no more, and which eyes could not pierce, for it was void."

Although the 'Unlight' is a darkness without solid form, it must seem to have form because light cannot penetrate it, and so it lacks any translucency such as would be found with, say, wispy black smoke; and it also lacks any reflective properties, devouring light rather than reflecting it off any surface or edge it might have.

We have established that wings do not need to be functional. Do they then have to be both visible and tactual? As we are dealing with mythical creatures, let's consider one that has no substance (a spirit). In its mythological setting, we do not deny its existence because we can see and interact with it; and if it had wings, we would testify to that fact, though they may not exist in a form that can be sensed by ordinary mortals in any way other than by sight. 

Vision is the sensing of light as it is reflected back into the eyes; and so it seems to me that the Balrog's 'wings' may be the only thing not visible (having no light in them at all), but not visible in such an absolute way that they are clearly defined by the visual senses because of the visibility of all that surrounds them that is not engulfed by them.

So, if the balrog has a nothingness - an Unlight - in the shape of wings, that is clearly visible because of the absence of the visibility of anything it engulfs; do those wings exist to the extent that they can be called 'wings'?

My head hurts!


----------



## Starbrow

Hey Galin,
I'm having the same trouble as Eledwhen with your posts not showing up in the thread. I only saw your latest post when I went to reply.



> So, if the balrog has a nothingness - an Unlight - in the shape of wings, that is clearly visible because of the absence of the visibility of anything it engulfs; do those wings exist to the extent that they can be called 'wings'?
> 
> My head hurts!



So does mine!


----------



## Elthir

Leaves 

Galadriel's lament: _yéni únótime ve rámar aldaron! _
_l__ong years numberless as the wings of trees!_

Cloud

_The Notion Club Papers: 'A great cloud coming up slowly out of the west was eating up the stars. As it approached it opened two vast sable wings spreading north and south.' _

Sails

_Tal Elmar: '...in greater numbers they come then: two ships or more together stuffed with men and not goods and ever one of the accursed ships hath black wings.'_

_Darkness _

_The Return of the King:__'Over the land there lies a long shadow, __westward reaching wings of darkness.'_

Whatever the properties or nature of the shadow about the Balrog, it need only reach out like wings (or look like wings), to be referred to with the word wings.


----------



## Thráin II

Well, I've read through all 46 pages of this thread, and I've also read pretty much all the Balrog wing discussion articles out there.

I would put forth the theory that Tolkien did not believe, at the time of writing the LOTR, that this, let us face it, rather minor aspect would be cause for such intense debate. With this in mind, I don't think he gave the whole problem so much thought as some might imply, finally deciding to leave it ambiguous on purpose.

As to the issue at hand, I am of the opinion that Balrogs do not have wings. Most if not all of my arguments have already been stated (and re-stated, argued for and against endlessly) in this very thread.

I believe there should be no doubt (lest you want to force the hand of interpretation so that the texts say otherwise) that Balrogs cannot fly. A plethora of quotes in this respect have been provided (such as Durin's Bane leaping from here to there, as well as the Balrog that Glorfindel battled and his movements). Indeed as has already been stated, Balrogs never seemed to fly even in situations where it would have been clearly advantageous to do so. We can dismiss phrases such as "passed with winged speed over", seeing as Tolkien uses such phrases, as well as the word "fly" in many contexts not linked to actual flight.

So, if Balrogs cannot fly, why would they have wings? We can dismiss any arguments based on physical evolution making wings useless because, after all, they were Maia and chose their forms which then remained the same. I don't think atrophy can come into play either, because after sleeping for some 6,000 years I think it's safe to say you couldn't stretch your wings in one go.

I'd argue that Balrogs did not suffer from atrophy, ever.

I do not think that they chose to have flightless wings for the purpose of intimidation when they had much more powerful tools to that effect. Their unlight and the terror that they spread about them, coupled with the fact that they were larger than a man's stature and just happened to be engulfed in flames should suffice to scare off anyone who would be likely to get scared, and I'm sure that while fighting Gandalf, popping out a pair of wings wouldn't have made Gandalf say "Ok, now I'm screwed, must run!".

So, seeing as there wouldn't be any purpose in having flightless wings, and since I believe it to be quite obvious that Balrogs couldn't fly, I believe they simply did not posses wings.

Another issue that should be addressed is the description of Durin's Bane in "The bridge of Khazad-Dûm". We are provided an ample description of the Balrog, yet no wings are mentioned. Tolkien never seemed to have any trouble describing anything, and he never left important details out. In my own mind there is no doubt that if the Balrog had corporeal wings, this would have been mentioned in the initial description, ie here:



> _What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape, maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it._


Additionally, it should be said that it was not common fact that Balrogs had wings (especially as this is the first time Balrogs are mentioned in the Lord of the Rings), so one cannot say that the reason Tolkien did not mention this aspect of their anatomy is because it was common knowledge.

Lastly, as to whether the wings were made of shadow or not, I think the following should be made clear. The text clearly says that



> _and the shadow about it reached out *like* two vast wings_


so there should be no doubt that the shadow he controlled, for whatever reason, took the shape of two wings. This is not to say that his wings were like a shadow. Their substance is clear to have been shadow (or unlight, certainly not mere real-world shadow), so they cannot in any way have been of flesh and blood.

It then follows to say that



> _its wings were spread from wall to wall..._


which, seeing as the Balrog had never been described as having wings before this, except for his shadow having taken the shape of wings, it should be clear refers to his shadow, shaped as wings, having spread from wall to wall.

All of this is, of course, my opinion. I do hope, though, that I've been able to produce ample justification for it


----------



## Gothmog

Exelent post Thráin II, well presented.

Congratulations on working your way through all the posts in this thread, that was a job in itself. 

Having done that I expect you will be unsurprised to find that I agree with you


----------



## Thráin II

Gothmog said:


> Exelent post Thráin II, well presented.
> 
> Congratulations on working your way through all the posts in this thread, that was a job in itself.
> 
> Having done that I expect you will be unsurprised to find that I agree with you



Thank you, Gothmog. I am indeed unsurprised that you agree with me, and I'm ashamed to say that my post wasn't especially directed at you, but more towards the pro-wing camp.

Hopefully I've managed to open an eye or two over there. Now I only have to wait 2-6 months for a reply!


----------



## Gothmog

Thráin II, you have nothing to be ashamed of in that post or who it was directed at. I did not have any thought that it might be directed either at me or in support of me. I just enjoyed reading a well presented post on this subject. 

I have no doubt that you will recieve answers.

Just be patient


----------



## Burzum

I haven't read all 47 pages, but it seems like we can agree that Balrogs did not have _physical_ wings, at least. I think the strongest argument comes from the size of the Balrog - if it had physical wings as vast as the quote about it in the Bridge of Khazad-Dum implies, then it would not have been able to enter the chamber that led to the bridge (the whole argument, which I'm pretty sure would have been mentioned in this thread anyway, can be found here: http://www.glyphweb.com/ARDA/b/balrogs.html). Besides, the Balrogs that appear in the First Age don't seem to be that gigantic, either.




Eledhwen said:


> Like Ungoliant: "There [in her ravine] she sucked up all light that she could find, and spun it forth again in dark nets of strangling gloom,"
> 
> And to aid Melkor in his quest: "A cloak of darkness she wove about them when Melkor and Ungoliant set forth: an Unlight, in which things seemed to be no more, and which eyes could not pierce, for it was void."
> 
> Although the 'Unlight' is a darkness without solid form, it must seem to have form because light cannot penetrate it, and so it lacks any translucency such as would be found with, say, wispy black smoke; and it also lacks any reflective properties, devouring light rather than reflecting it off any surface or edge it might have.
> 
> We have established that wings do not need to be functional. Do they then have to be both visible and tactual? As we are dealing with mythical creatures, let's consider one that has no substance (a spirit). In its mythological setting, we do not deny its existence because we can see and interact with it; and if it had wings, we would testify to that fact, though they may not exist in a form that can be sensed by ordinary mortals in any way other than by sight.
> 
> Vision is the sensing of light as it is reflected back into the eyes; and so it seems to me that the Balrog's 'wings' may be the only thing not visible (having no light in them at all), but not visible in such an absolute way that they are clearly defined by the visual senses because of the visibility of all that surrounds them that is not engulfed by them.
> 
> So, if the balrog has a nothingness - an Unlight - in the shape of wings, that is clearly visible because of the absence of the visibility of anything it engulfs; do those wings exist to the extent that they can be called 'wings'?
> 
> My head hurts!


This is a very good point. I think it depends on whether the Balrogs always (or at least in most cases) had the unlight around them form the shape of wings or not. If they were always seen with those unlight wings, we could say that the Balrogs had wings, though not physical ones. But if it was just that specific Balrog (Durin's Bane) having unlight wings for that specific time, then no. To draw an analogy, Sauron assumed a form of a werewolf for a moment, but we typically don't say Sauron's appearance is that of an wolf (not a very good analogy, I know... I will try to come up with a better one).


----------



## Starbrow

> But if it was just that specific Balrog (Durin's Bane) having unlight wings for that specific time



So, you're saying a balrog sometimes had wings and sometimes didn't. That makes both sides right.  Now everybody should be happy.


----------



## YayGollum

Was this point ever brought up before? ---> Balrogs are spirits of fear, too. They are limited only to forms that display their natures, and, in that Moria scene, the wings certainly seem to sprout for intimidation. They might only be able to follow the Roger Rabbit rule, in that they can only shapeshift if it would be scary, and I would most definitely be nervous, if a bunch of balrogs zipped towards me to save Mel. They seem to be able to fly, and I don't see why they wouldn't be able to shapeshift. The reason why two famously fell is simply that they were weighed down by their opponent. Sure, they could be plenty strong, but fire doesn't weigh much. They might have been able to save themselves.


----------



## Haleth

I voted no, although I am still on the fence about it. When I imagine Balrogs, I never imagine them with the type of leathery membrane wings dragons usually have, just with some wing-like shadows around them. In all the batlles that they take part in, the fighting is described as happening on a stable surface (or at least starting out there). Balrogs are, as far as I know, never mentioned swooping down on their enemies from above, or ever using the ability to fly to escape. 

I also never imagine Balrogs like some huge horned demon creatures, but more man-like in shape.


----------



## Bucky

which, seeing as the Balrog had never been described as having wings before this, except for his shadow having taken the shape of wings, it should be clear refers to his shadow, shaped as wings, having spread from wall to wall.

*Opinions about falling aside, this is all that really matters.

The 'wings' are just a metaphor for darkness 'growing', simple as that.
Read the text carefully.
No sprouting wings - really now. 

It only took me 30 years to realize this & reverse my opinion though. 


As far as shape shifting, the darkness grew greater or less in direct proportion to the flame going the other way, but Tolkien is clear that the Balrog 'was like a great shadow, in the middle was a dark form, of man-shape, maybe, yet greater'. 
There appears therefore, to be a solid being to a Balrog surrounded by the shadow & flame......

After all, what 'smote the mountainside in it's ruin' when Gandalf 'threw down his enemy'?

A shadow?
Couldn't be. It had to be something solid.

Besides, when falling into the water in the abyss, the Balrog 'extinguishes' & becomes a 'thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake'. 



I guess it just shifted shape there......

However, that was hardly volunteerily.*


----------



## Aisteru

I know that this sort of post lacks any real substance, but I just read your thing Bucky and I have something to say. Although I have no real textual evidence, I specifically remember in the "Weapons and Warfare" book that I have, the Balrog is able to draw his arsenal out of himself. In a way, he is able to fashion a sword/whip/lance/whatever he needs from his own form. In that sense, the Balrog can certainly shape shift. So, I don't think it's entirely impossible that the Balrog was able to fashion himself wings as well.


----------



## Bucky

What is a 'Weapons & Warfare' book?

A Game manual?

The only thing I know of is Balrogs have whips of fire & flaming swords which, from the little I've read, appear to be part of their being yet irreplaceable.

Durin's Bane for example, has it's flaming sword broken by Glamdring vs. Gandalf & doesn't just 'pop out' another one......

Actually, the text says specifically that the sword 'went up in molten fragments' - sounds solid to me, not just fire.

And, obviously, his only one.

Plus, let us recall that Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs, carried a black axe as a weapon. Whether he also had a flaming sword, I don't know.


----------



## Aisteru

I'm glad you shot my answer down, Bucky. I would have been very disappointed had you not. Weapons and Warfare is an unofficial guide to the weapons and warfare of middle earth. It's by Chris Smith. Not a very reliable source, but it just came to mind.


----------



## Bucky

At least it's not a game manual.... 

An aside: I always wondered about that black axe of Gothmog.....

Was it black because it was burnt black?

It really does seem to be a bit inconsistent with the flaming swords & whips of fire though - which do seem to work well within the whole Balrog/fire thingy.

However, it is ONE passage in a text Tolkien had not actually published himself......


----------



## Húrin

I believe the Balrogs did have wings. Tolkien mentioned "great shadows like wings" during Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog in Moria. This is inconclusive, but it does seem to provide at least some evidence that the Balrogs did have wings. 

Also in the Silmarillion, when Melkor refuses to give up the Silmarils to Ungoliant, he calls to the Balrogs for aid and they come within minutes. I doubt this would have been possible had they not had wings.


----------



## Astrance

And let's not forget the ultimate dilemna : Did Balrogs wear fluffy bedroom slippers ?

My favourite one so far 

I have to say that there's a lot of pros for the fluffy slippers.


----------



## Firawyn

ROFL! Stockholm, where on earth did you find that?


----------



## Astrance

Well, I was reading the site of this Tolkien fan who wrote a slightly modified LoTR synopsis for those to lazy to read the books. Synopsis the Sunday Times journalists used, thinking it real — so they wrote of Berúthiel as Galadriel's evil sister who imprisonned the Fellowship in Lorien


----------



## Eledhwen

Stockholm said:


> Well, I was reading the site of this Tolkien fan who wrote a slightly modified LoTR synopsis for those too lazy to read the books. Synopsis the Sunday Times journalists used, thinking it real — so they wrote of Berúthiel as Galadriel's evil sister who imprisoned the Fellowship in Lorien


Heh heh! I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the Sunday Times editor's office when the letters came in; the people who buy that paper will probably have read LotR!


----------



## Astrance

Yes, that would have been worth listening to  The man who wrote this article could probably write another one afterwards, called « How to ruin your journalistic career in one easy move »...


----------



## AnathemicOne

I've read this thread up to page 16 and I got tired of reading back and forth, oh well.

Anyways, just adding my opinion here:

I believe Balrogs do not posses wings.


----------



## Afalstein

A lot of the stuff has already been said. I don't think they have wings, the passage only says that the shadow was LIKE two great wings, and the later sentence, again, might just be referring to the wing-like shadow.

Otherwise, I'm a trifle confused as to why a 'winged' Balrog would feel the need to cross a bridge, or fall down an endless pit. In Silmarillion, we hear about Balrogs a lot, but we never hear of them flying, and the eventual 'winged dragons' that appear at the end are seen as a great masterpiece of Morgoths. It seems they'd be such a big deal if the Balrogs could fly the whole time.

The wings do LOOK cool, but that's not exactly what we're working off of. And actually, strictly speaking, I don't even think the book SAYS the Balrog is a huge creature, just an enormously powerful one. (again, how would he cross a single-file bridge if he was?). Considering the Balrog is a _maia_, like Gandalf, he wouldn't need size to be powerful. Making him big and giving him wings may be necessary for movies or even illustrations, but they're not necessary.


----------



## Firawyn

Afalstein said:


> Otherwise, I'm a trifle confused as to why a 'winged' Balrog would feel the need to cross a bridge, or fall down an endless pit.



The biggest argument with this point is that many species have wings but do NOT have the ability to fly. Penguins, for example - they use wings to propel through water. Peacocks use them to frighten off attackers or attract mates. 

There are many purposes for wings, and Balrogs very well may have had wings for some other purpose than flying. We just don't know enough about them to speculate they might use wings for. If they have large, awkward bodies, wings could serve the purpose of maintaining balance - much like a mouse's tail. 

So far as the "the shadow was LIKE two great wings" point - I must quote Mr. Spock.

_"Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. "_

The mines of Moria were dark. Even IF the balrog had wings, and even IF the Fellowship observed that 'the shadow was like two great wings', we can't assume that 'like', means 'appeared to be but was not'. It could very well have meant 'appeared to be and WAS'. 

Referring back to the Spock quote (yes, I'm a Trekky) we have no way, as JRRT is no longer living and I don't think any of us have Christopher Tolkien's email address, of eliminating EITHER speculation (_Wings or No Wings_) then it is therefore impossible for us to deduct which is the truth. 

As for myself, I tend to believe they DID have wings. I think that balrogs could be distantly related to dragons, much as we surmise that modern reptiles descend from dinosaurs. Through the mutation of genes (Genetics is a hobby of mine) some physical traits are lost, and some are gained. That could apply to dragons and balrogs, as they do share a certain amount of environmental commonalities. 

My thoughts. :*)


----------



## Gúthwinë

I was just watching FotR(for the bazillionth time) the other day, and when that scene came on the first thing my eyes went to were the wings. Sure the balrog might be able to fly, but at that limited amount of space, I'm surprised it didn't get snagged on anything first!


----------



## Afalstein

The narrowness of the pit is how they deal with it in the Movie, yes. Obviously in a confined space like that, he couldn't very well use his wings.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Balrogs are older than any kind of dragon. They fought off Ungoliant way back in the day when she threatened Melkor. I suppose it's possible Melkor bred the dragons from them, but the Balrogs always seemed to be more incarnated spirits than strict beasts or animals. Something like Sauron. DNA doesn't enter into it a whole lot.


----------



## childoferu

Afalstein said:


> The narrowness of the pit is how they deal with it in the Movie, yes. Obviously in a confined space like that, he couldn't very well use his wings.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Balrogs are older than any kind of dragon. They fought off Ungoliant way back in the day when she threatened Melkor. I suppose it's possible Melkor bred the dragons from them, but the Balrogs always seemed to be more incarnated spirits than strict beasts or animals. Something like Sauron. DNA doesn't enter into it a whole lot.


 
Yes, the balrogs are in existence before dragons, and I believe they're Maiar like Sauron, but lower on the totem pol


----------



## Firawyn

Of course, balrogs are older than dragons. Sorry, I should have made that more clear. 

I was speculating that perhaps dragons descended FROM balrogs. I can't say I have much evidence to that point, but it is a theory. 

And DNA _always_ into things. Someone as detail crazy as JRRT would agree with me on that point. :*cool:


----------



## Starbrow

The reason I believe Balrogs have wings is the line which says,


> 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.*


There is nothing in this quote that says it had something like wings. It just refers to the balrog's wings.


----------



## Thorin

Goodness! I still can't believe this thread is going! I remember well many years ago when it was started by Beorn! Crazy!


----------



## Gandalf White

> "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. "



First off that was Arthur Conan Doyle through Sherlock Holmes, unless I am much mistaken. Spock would have been much later?

More to the point, if the Balrog were a creature of shadow and flame...it would be able to have a definite shape (with wings) and yet still be unable to fly, no?


----------



## Peeping-Tom

First use Google then Wikipedia....if fail....then read the books!
I've tried it all...

Wiki- or Wicked....I still think it nails it the best....qouted below.

Qoute Summary : 
Tolkiens Balrogs were initially "small" (twice human size), but later they got bigger and nastier.
Balrogs used different weapons in different stories.
They can not fly themselves (the small ones used dragons for winged transport).
Wings are still up for debate...

Peeping-Tom summary :
Close your eyes...picture your own Balrog...thats how they are...:*up...and don't let anyone berate you about it! :*D



> Tolkien's conception of Balrogs changed over time. In all his early writing, they are numerous. There is a host of them stated to number a thousand in _Quenta Silmarillion_ while at the storming of Gondolin, Balrogs in the hundreds ride on the backs of the Dragons. They are roughly of twice human size, and were occasionally killed in battle by Elves and, at the Fall of Gondolin, five were slain by Tuor. They were fierce demons, associated with fire, armed with fiery whips of many thongs and claws like steel, and Morgoth delighted in using them to torture his captives. They were loyal to Morgoth, and once came out of hiding to save him from capture.
> In the published version of _The Lord of the Rings_, however, Balrogs became altogether more sinister, powerful and larger. Christopher Tolkien notes the difference, saying that in earlier versions they were "less terrible and certainly more destructible". He quotes a very late margin note that was not incorporated into the text saying "at most seven" ever existed; though in the _Annals of Aman_, written as late as 1958, after the publication of _The Lord of the Rings_, Melkor still commands "a host of Balrogs". In later writings they ceased to be creatures, but are instead Maiar, lesser Ainur like Gandalf or Sauron, spirits of fire whom Melkor had corrupted before the creation of the World. They required power of the order of Gandalf's to destroy them, and as Maiar, only their physical forms could be destroyed.
> Tolkien says of the Valar (including the Maiar) that they can change their shape at will, and move _unclad in the raiment of the world_, meaning invisible and without form. But it seems that Morgoth, Sauron , and their associated Maiar could lose this ability: Morgoth, for example, was unable to heal his burns from the Silmarils or wounds from Fingolfin and Thorondor; and Sauron lost his ability to assume a fair-seeming form after his physical body was destroyed in the downfall of Númenor.
> Tolkien does not address this specifically for Balrogs. In "the Bridge of Khazad-dûm" in _The Fellowship of the Ring_, the Balrog appears "like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater". Though previously the Balrog had entered the "large square chamber" of Mazarbul, at the Bridge of Khazad-dûm it "drew itself to a great height, and its wings spread from wall to wall" in what was a vast hall.
> The Balrog's size and shape, therefore, are not given precisely. When Gandalf threw it from the peak of Zirakzigil, the Balrog "broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin".
> Whether Balrogs have wings (and if so, whether they can fly) is unclear. This is due partly to Tolkien's changing conception of Balrogs, but mostly to his imprecise but suggestive and possibly figurative description of the Balrog that confronted Gandalf in Moria.
> 
> The two key quotations:
> _His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings._​_… suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall …_​The argument hinges on whether the "wings" are physical wings or simply figurative wings of shadow. Many additional facts are adduced to the argument, but there is not enough firm description in Tolkien's writing to settle the argument definitively.
> The Balrog of Moria used a flaming sword ("From out of the shadow a red sword leapt flaming") and the characteristic many-thonged whip of flame in its battle with Gandalf. In _The Silmarillion_, they also used black axes and maces. Earlier writings also speak of steel claws and iron mail.


----------



## adpirtle

Oh my gosh..I cannot believe how many people voted yes! LOTR describes the balrog as being cloaked in a 'shadow like wings' and when the 'wings' are spread, its just filling the cavern with its evil shadowy presence. I'm sure this has all been said before in this multi page thread. But NO, NO WINGS! :*mad:


----------



## Peeping-Tom

Just to mention that Tolkien ment the Balrogs to be able to fly...



> *From Return of the King, Appendix A, Durin's folk :*
> Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, _*flying*_ from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth.




How could it fly, without having wings???????


----------



## Elthir

> Just to mention that Tolkien ment the Balrogs to be able to fly...
> 
> *From Return of the King, Appendix A, Durin's folk :*
> Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, _*flying*_ from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth.
> 
> How could it fly, without having wings???????


 


Easy :*D


'Then Azog laughed, and he lifted up his head to let forth a great yell of triumph; but the cry died in his throat. For he saw that all his host in the valley was in a rout, and the dwarves went this way and that slaying as they would, and those that could escape from them were flying south, shrieking as they ran.' 

The Return of the King, Appendix A


----------



## Kyranger

This is my favorite anti-wing Balrog argument.


----------



## Bucky

"Fly you fools" :*o


----------



## Ken Hardin

ReadWryt said:


> To presume that when Tolkien said that the Balrog's wings spread from wall to wall meant that he REALLY meant the Shadows is to impune his ability to susinctly describe events and scenes. I think that if you read his works you will find that he had a firm grasp on describing PRECISELY what he meant, and with tremendous detail and accuracy.



I think it is only to say that Tolkien was extending a metaphor that he had just established.

Balrogs don't fly. Why would that have wings?


----------



## Black Captain

I've always thought of the balrog as having wings. Not only do the books mention it, but the picture the movies give it has always stuck in my mind. Tolkien describes the balrog as a demon, and the traditional demons had wings.


----------



## Elthir

Black Captain said:


> I've always thought of the balrog as having wings. Not only do the books mention it, but the picture the movies give it has always stuck in my mind. Tolkien describes the balrog as a demon, and the traditional demons had wings.




Well, I realize you're likely just going for brevity there, but technically the books do not actually mention wings in some obvious way of course, or there would be no debate! I would rather say that a section of the books employs the word wings within a description that some interpret as being 'actual wings' (something beyond wings as a temporary shadow-shape).


As far as 'demon' goes, let's put it this way: Tolkien's early Balrogs (Balrogs as imagined in _The Book of Lost Tales_ -- up to the _Quenta Silmarillion_ of the mid to later 1930s) were called 'demons' too: anyone want to argue that _they_ flew, or had wings?

:*D


----------



## Bucky

no, No, NO.

DAMMIT!
:*mad:

Read it carefully...

It's absolutely described as a metaphor...

It only took me 30 years to see it & come around. ;*)

Who gives a &^%$ what PJ did...

He screwed up lots of things.

Like Sauron the Lighthouse. :*D


----------



## Firawyn

You know, sometimes I wonder if Tolkien, detail oriented as the man was, wrote that description PURPOSELY knowing that it could be read and interpreted either way. By the time LotR came out, he already had a fan base from _The Hobbit_...

I wish someone had addressed the issue in _The Letters_.

:*confused:


----------



## Bucky

One thing is for sure:

This debate will be going on long after we're all dead & buried ~~ if there's still an earth that is.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

If I may interject here for a bit. I voted that they had wings, but I won't defend myself. Rather I would just like to highlight some key points for both sides, and maybe it will be able to enlighten others.

Pro-Wings: 

Tolkien does state that it's wings spread from wall to wall.
As mentioned earlier, the Balrogs were able to issue forth swiftly and in time to save Morgoth. All the way from beneath Angband to Lammoth? That is about 300 miles, not to mention all the mountains they would have to get through.
After falling in Moria, perhaps there was not enough space to fly, or it may have needed a starting run or starting jump.
Anti-Wings

Countless examples of figures of speech in Tolkien's works, and not just similes.
First it says "like wings" and later just "wings". Either it is a continuation of the simile or a straight up metaphor. That is a possibility.


----------



## tspnyc

Sorry, this is simply ridiculous. It just shows people will choose to believe what has no basis in reality whatsoever, simply because they wish to.

It is made clear in the novel that "wings" are a poetic metaphor. 

The author uses the simile "like wings" to set up the metaphor in an earlier passage.

So when he refers directly to the balrog's wings in the latter passage it has already been established - BEYOND ANY DOUBT OR ARGUMENT - that the balrog does not have actual wings.

The balrog has an enveloping darkness that at times spread out from him to block out what is around or behind him, as if that darkness were huge wings. 

Rather, it is nothing but a metephor, following a simile which mad plain the darkness was _like _wings, but not actual wings.

End of discussion. 

Only those too stoned when reading the chapter or those too ignorant of the rules of the English language could think Tolkien meant to imply the creature had actual wings.

I must confess, I fall into the first of these two options, when I first read the Lord of the Rings as a teenager. 

But the use of the simile in the first mention of wings is irrefutable evidence, and is further backed up in all his other writings concerning balrogs, who are never said to possess wings or to fly, etc.

The fact this poll is so overly in favor of balrogs having wings, leads me to ask the members of this forum, what are smoking!?


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Are you saying Peter Jackson screwed up? How is that possible? 

Anyway it seems that the argument is not whether they had wings but what type of wings. Wings do not have to look like the conventional bird or bat wings. In my opinion, it was an enveloping shadow that was upon the Balrog, and wings were simply used to describe it. So yes, close to a metaphor, perhaps indeed a metaphor, but it could also be literal.

As I said earlier, the simile could just be continued through the following metaphor.


----------



## Bucky

Bard the Bowman said:


> Are you saying Peter Jackson screwed up? How is that possible?


 
*Uh, watch the movies, lol..

1. Sauron is not a lighthouse in the books. He has a body. Gollum plainly says "he has four fingers on one hand, but they are enough." (paraphrase)

2. need I go on? ;*) *


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

Bucky said:


> *Uh, watch the movies, lol..
> 
> 1. Sauron is not a lighthouse in the books. He has a body. Gollum plainly says "he has four fingers on one hand, but they are enough." (paraphrase)
> 
> 2. need I go on? ;*) *


 
So when Sauron returned, in the book, what did he look like? I believe you but I think that other than seeing a 'lighthouse Sauron' I'm unsure of his appearance post-loss of Ring


----------



## Bucky

Sauron looked just like he always did post-Nunenor, it just took him time to regain his shape after leaving his body after the battle on Mount Doom when Isildor cut the Ring from his body ~ there was no dramatic slicing of the fingers and Sauron falling down dying like the movie...

It's late now & I'll try to gather all the proper data tomorrow.

I'm going to open a can of worms with what Sauron looked like, I can guarentee you that, but I can only quote the text..

Stay tuned. 
But, I guarantee you that Sauron had a body and was not a lighthouse searching the plains of Gorgoroth for enemies with a slender beam of light as Frodo fell like he'd been shot to avoid it as PJ portrayed him. :*rolleyes:


----------



## Troll

tspnyc said:


> End of discussion.
> 
> Only those too stoned when reading the chapter or those too ignorant of the rules of the English language could think Tolkien meant to imply the creature had actual wings.


 Aw, you little charmer.

I think we're gonna get along juuuuuuust fine. ^________^



Bucky said:


> It's late now & I'll try to gather all the proper data tomorrow.
> 
> I'm going to open a can of worms with what Sauron looked like, I can guarentee you that, but I can only quote the text..
> 
> Stay tuned.


 
Ooooh, looking forward to that.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Anyone have any theories on how the Balrogs rescued Morgoth in time? 300 miles over mountains? Are they able to dissipate and travel at great speeds and then reform themselves? Could it have been wings?


----------



## Elthir

> Anyone have any theories on how the Balrogs rescued Morgoth in time? 300 miles over mountains?



As Tolkien said: with winged speed :*D

And although at the moment I can't recall how close the geography -- as imagined in 1930 -- was to the geography of later conceptions, in any case at this point the Orcs were seemingly on the move too!


'...and his awful cry echoed through the shuddering world. To his aid came the Orcs and Balrogs that lived yet in the lowest places of Angband. With their whips of flame the Balrogs smote the webs asunder...'

JRRT, Qenta Noldorinwa, 1930​


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Shouldn't we go by the finished Silmarillion though? It explicitly states that the Balrogs came from Angband and passed over Hithlum. Hithlum alone is 150 miles across. And they have to issue from Angband another 100 miles or so to get to Hithlum. Not to mention all the mountains they would have to cross. How could they do this on foot?


----------



## Elthir

Alright, the later Quenta Silmarillion it is!

I'm still going with winged speed ;*)


'Far beneath the halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, the Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their Lord. Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.'

JRRT, The Later Quenta Silmarillion, Morgoth's Ring ​


----------



## Bucky

Okay, rather than totally highjack this thread, I posted the info under 'Sauron is not a Lighthouse' in the Hall of Fire'....

Lots of info there.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

So Galin, you support the idea that Balrogs had completely functional wings, which could be used to travel great distances at speed? Just clearing up.


----------



## Elthir

Bard the Bowman said:


> So Galin, you support the idea that Balrogs had completely functional wings, which could be used to travel great distances at speed? Just clearing up.



No I don't support that actually.

See (current) post 685 of this thread, for example.


----------



## Bucky

Here, I stumbled on to what I believe is as close to irrefutable evidence that Balrogs do not have wings and Tolkien was indeed speaking metaphorically...

Do I expect to change anybody's minds?

Hardly, but it more than settles the matter for me.

In the Sauron is not a Lighthouse thread, Galin posted this, in regards to the size Maiar taken when tasking bodily form:



Galin said:


> The fuller quote reads: letter 246, from a letter to Mrs Eileen Elgar (drafts) September 1963
> 
> 'In any case a confrontation of Frodo and Sauron would soon have taken place, if the Ring was intact. Its result was inevitable. Frodo would have been utterly overthrown: crushed to dust, or preserved in torment as a gibbering slave. Sauron would not have feared the Ring! It was his own and under his will. Even from afar he had an effect upon it, to make it work for its return to himself. In his actual presence none but very few of equal stature could have hoped to withhold it from him. Of 'mortals' no one, not even Aragorn. In the contest with the Palantír Aragorn was the rightful owner. Also the contest took place at a distance, and in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. In his earlier incarnation he was able to veil his power (as Gandalf did) and could appear as a commanding figure of great strength of body and supremely royal demeanour and countenance.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reference to the Balrog, in the ultimate form of part of the description in Moria, the demon is described as: '... of man-shape maybe, yet greater' before it draws itself up to a 'great height'.



*Note, both Sauron & Durin's Bane are 'Human stature, but not gigantic' & 'man-size, yet greater'...

I've read/heard that a height of 9 to 13 feet for Sauron, I don't recall if this is from Tolkien's writings, but it sounds about right to me from this description ~ certainly PJ's 30 feet for DB is a bit exagerated from 'man-size but greater'. Are we to believe the Noldor & Gandalf were killing 30 foot monsters?

And how tall would that make Morgoth?

I've read (online) heights for him of 19 & up to 70 feet. I tend to believe the 19 foot one myself.

Just think of Fingolfin battling a 70 foot tall Morgoth, or, 70 foot tall Morgoth & Luthien ~ 'nuff said there...

Perhaps Galin can produce an actual quote from Tolkien's work, because I never found one. There is a blurb from CT's introduction to CoH that says Morgoth was 'gigantic & majestic', but doesn't give a height...

That's the only one I know of.

So 19 feet sounds right to me.

Therefore, ain't no Balrong going to be bigger than his master, of a higher spiritual order. Heck, Myths Transformed plainly states Sauron is greater than Balrogs...

So, the point of all this?

The wings...

'it's wings were spread wall to wall'

The Hall they were in is MASSIVE.

'Before them was another cavernous hall. It was loftier and far longer than the one in which they had slept. They were near it's eastern end.; westward it ran away into the darkness. Down the centere stalked a double line of pillars....'

'The distance was greater than it looked'

"The outer door could only be reached by a slender bridge of stone, without curb or rail, that was spanned by a chasm of one curving spring of 50 feet.'

So, by all these descriptions of the hall, we have clearly determined that the hall is rather, large, massive indeed....

The Fellowship had to run for a while before getting to the bridge of 50 feet, so the hall must've been, at minimum, 250-300 feet long & with 2 columns of stone pillars, 150-200 feet wide...

Are we to assume a creature of 9-13 feet tall 'spread it's wings from wall to wall' & that was 150-200 feet minimum?

That's a little anatomically out of whack, wouldn't the most ardent wings-believer have to admit?

Especially for such a detail obsessed writer as JRR Tolkien?

And, I'm using the most conservative estimates....

Even if PJ's 30 fooot Balrog was correct, which it isn't, 150-200 foot wings are impossible...

And let's face it, that hall was much bigger than that, like about what PJ made I'd say.

This alone proves beyond any 'shadow' of a doubt that the wings are a metaphor.


*


----------



## Elthir

Well, not to rain on your latest idea Bucky, but I think this approach, in general anyway, has been raised before, as the Moria description itself refers to the 'wings' as 'vast' at one point. But those who believe this is not a problem will (likely) point to the general ambiguity of Tolkien's phrasing however, with 'greater' than man-shape, and especially when the demon draws itself up to a 'great height'.

People tend to interpret these things differently of course :*)


If Tolkien calls something a 'giant' does that mean 8 feet tall or 30 feet tall? Or something else (not that it helps solve anything here, but Treebeard was said to be at least 14 feet tall)? For myself I tend to agree that greater than man-shape does not mean 30 feet tall for example, or even a 'great height', and that these vast shapes were likely not physical wings like that of an eagle or dragon; while wings made of Unlight could be vast and menacing...

... I'm just saying that the 'size argument' in general isn't new -- not that you claimed it was new anyway -- and then again it's hard to come up with something new about a debate that has been going on for so long! I can't say I recall the argument that the Balrogs should not be larger than Sauron (who was of more than human stature but 'not gigantic' according to JRRT), so that part seems new to me, but I'm not sure everyone would agree this should necessarily be so. In the drafts Tolkien started with a creature that was clearly seen (no shadow it would seem) and was '... no more than man-high yet terror seemed to go before it.' -- but again, this is a draft passage, not the final version. 


I don't recall any specific heights given for Morgoth or Sauron. As for Balrogs, some will quote from the very early Fall of Gondolin (_The Book of Lost Tales_) to state that the Balrog Glorfindel slew was about twice Glorfindel's height. And so, some guess around 13 to 14 feet tall. Arguable problems with this might be...

A) these are conceptually different Balrogs anyway, and from a very early text.

B) Tolkien appears to have imagined the Gnomes (Glorfindel was a Gnome) much smaller in _The Book of Lost Tales_ -- compared to later ideas (thus one need not start with 6.5 or 7 feet in the first place).

C) the draft text of the Moria passage seems to imply that the height of Glorfindel's Balrog was itself not a fixed idea, if (that is) Tolkien had even remembered what he had written so many years before in this early version of _The Fall of Gondolin.

_D) see A _;*)_


----------



## Bucky

Well, I never expected to convince anybody anyhow. ;*)

But, I'm convinced...

And have done a complete 360 over the years from literal wings to metaphor.


----------



## Elthir

Bard the Bowman said:


> Shouldn't we go by the finished Silmarillion though? It explicitly states that the Balrogs came from Angband and passed over Hithlum. Hithlum alone is 150 miles across. And they have to issue from Angband another 100 miles or so to get to Hithlum. Not to mention all the mountains they would have to cross. How could they do this on foot?




My longer answer is that I think they did do this on foot. Although I'm not positive that it's _positive_ that they crossed any significant mountains to do so.


I know what you mean by 'finished Silmarillion' of course, but with respect to Tolkien himself we don't have a finished Silmarillion, and especially the geography of the far North was questionable enough (in certain details at least) that Christopher Tolkien chose not to include it in his map for the 1977 Silmarillion. That said, I think the geography was well enough in place in the later 1930s to help support that the Balrogs -- however long this journey appears -- did not fly.

The map


Tolkien's second Silmarillion map: 'belonged in its original form with the earlier work of the 1930s' and Christopher Tolkien notes: '... I give here on four successive pages a reproduction of the map _as it was originally drawn and lettered.'_ and 'The scale is 50 miles to 3.2 cm. (the length of the sides of the squares).' This second map was also the last JRRT ever made, although Tolkien would add to it and alter it over the years, and this: '... was the basis for my map in the published 'Silmarillion''

So here Hithlum is still at least 150 miles across, and the mountains are in place (the term Lammoth is not noted yet on this version, see _The Lost Road And Other Writings,_ page 408).

So in the version of _Quenta Silmarillion_ dated before _The Lord of the Rings_ was written the geography is generally in place, and at the end of Quenta Silmarillion: '... and out of the pits of Angband there issued the winged dragons, that had not before been seen; for until that day no creatures of his cruel thought had yet assailed the air.' Keeping in mind too, that Balrogs were not Maiar here, and had been wrought, or made, by Morgoth.

But yet in this same version, when Ungoliante enmeshes Morgoth: 'To his aid there came the Balrogs that lived yet in the deepest places of his ancient fortress, Utumno in the North. With their whips of flame the Balrogs smote the webs asunder...'

So although it seems far, very arguably the Balrogs could not fly, and thus must have run I think.

What happened to the Orcs with the Balrogs

The Orcs must have run when they were also noted as coming to Morgoth's aid in the_ Qenta Noldorinwa_ of 1930, and the arguable reason the Orcs are now not mentioned as coming to Morgoth's aid, along with the Balrogs, is that Tolkien had changed his mind about their origin from the Qenta Noldorinwa of 1930...

...that is, in the _Quenta Silmarillion_ of the mid to later 1930s, the Orcs were not available to help Morgoth with the Balrogs, as Tolkien changed the time of their making. Now Morgoth, once released from the webs of Ungoliant by the Balrogs, returns to Utumno, and builds anew in that place which the Gnomes after knew as Angband, and: 'There countless became the hosts of his beasts and demons; and he brought into being the race of the Orcs, and they grew and multiplied in the bowels of the earth.'



In the Qenta Noldorinwa of 1930 the Orcs had already been made, and thus available to also try to help Morgoth. Of course Tolkien will once again tinker with when the Orcs were 'made', but I think this is a likely enough reason they were left out (here) of the mid to later 1930s QS anyway.

Mountains? Maybe

As I say I'm not sure the Balrogs needed to pass any significant mountains. In _The Lost Road _Christopher Tolkien adds a 'Note on the geography of the furthest North' (page 270) in which he comments on a possible scenario with respect to a section of Map V of the Ambarcanta. He ends up drawing a possible configuration of how the army of the Dark Lord: 'turning West round the outer end of the Iron Mountains reached the shores of the Sea.'


In the path outlined the army passes between some northern mountains of Hithlum and the chasm to the further north -- of course, once reaching the Sea this force continued South in order to enter Hithlum, being destroyed at the Firth of Drengist, but they had reached the shores of the Sea in the North already, without any notable crossing of mountains, seemingly close to where Morgoth and Ungoliant had first reached Middle-earth from the Grinding Ice.

Even as late as the later 1950s, Tolkien seems to think that the Thieves' Quarrel (Later Quenta Silmarillion II, Morgoth's Ring page 295) was 'near' to the ruins of Angband: 'But when they had come to that region that was after called Lammoth, north of the Firth of Drengist, Morgoth grew more hopeful, for they were drawing near to the ruins of Angband where his great Western stronghold had been.'

How near is near? And granted, Tolkien does seem to have added Lammoth to the map in the first square North of Drengist, not higher North; but considering Morgoth's great cry, the region might start more North despite where its name is placed (again the map as shown here does not extend North enough to show Christopher Tolkien's conjecture given in _The Lost Road_).

Another consideration is the Firth of Drengist itself. This seems to be the entry of choice for the Noldor and even for the Orcs, who bypass a lot of mountain range (seemingly) to enter Hithlum here. I have suggested (in other threads having to do with this bit of geography and the Gate of the Noldor) that this could be an actual pass through the mountains, formed by the waterway, possibly only hilly and somewhat narrow, but still easier than climbing mountains in any event. 

Of course even if so, there would still be Mountains on the other side, but this consideration might at least help. I fully admit that the implication seems to be that the Balrogs passed over Hithlum by crossing Mountains, all I'm saying with this point is that I don't think Tolkien had yet worked out the geography of the North in full, and _maybe_ he imagined a less mountainous, or different route, than it would seem.

This raises questions regarding the Gate of the Noldor and Tuor too, which _might_ however be answered by a greater need for secrecy -- that is, if there was an easier natural gap in the Mountains, large enough for the Noldor (or Orcs) to enter Hithlum from the West, it might have been guarded.


In any case, whatever route they took, again given that I think the geography was 'close enough' in the 1930s, it seems to me that Tolkien himself had no problem with earth-bound creatures reaching Morgoth in time, whatever Ungoliant's plans; and so I don't accept the argument, when it's made or at least implied that is, that the seeming swiftness of this rescue means that the Balrogs could fly. 


Not necessarily anyway :*D


----------



## Bard the Bowman

I don't think it proves anything either Galin. But it certainly is a puzzling incident. Either they had wings or being in their early form their spirits could travel great distances and reform. Or it could simply be an error.


----------



## Elthir

Bard the Bowman said:


> I don't think it proves anything either Galin. But it certainly is a puzzling incident. Either they had wings or being in their early form their spirits could travel great distances and reform. Or it could simply be an error.



Or they ran, just as the orcs would have. And I doubt it's an error, as this scene hails from at least the time of the early Silmarillion 'sketch', was developed through the 1930s, and described again after _The Lord of the Rings_ in the 1950s.

Tolkien appears to have had no problem with earth-bound creatures rescuing Morgoth here, and so I see no great reason this should change when later (externally) the Balrogs are reimagined as self-incarnated Maiar. 

How long did it all take and what was going on here in detail? Who knows! But what we have is a rather poetic and (arguably) extremely condensed passage to describe how Morgoth escaped the great spider.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Sure they could have ran. But then either Ungoliant was extremely inefficient or Melkor was putting up a pretty good fight, as Balrogs seem fairly slow in the Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Elthir

> Sure they could have ran. But then either Ungoliant was extremely inefficient or Melkor was putting up a pretty good fight, as Balrogs seem fairly slow in the Lord of the Rings.




Well these Balrogs passed with 'winged speed' in any case...

... which is poetic-talk for very fast in my opinion :*D


----------



## Bard the Bowman

True. But they could have been going a hundred miles an hour (very fast I think, even for a winged creature), and still been late.


----------



## Elthir

But they weren't late. These Balrogs, however long it took, whatever path they took, whatever Ungoliant was doing or planning after webbing-up Morgoth, were fast enough because the text tells us they were.


Now, the implied argument (not necessarily yours) is that this is 'impossible' or at least very hard to believe _unless_ the Balrogs could fly. But in my opinion (in which I am not alone I'm guessing), the history of this pasage shows that Tolkien thought it was believable enough with land-bound creatures.

Thus I think the implied argument -- that this scenario makes 'flying' Balrogs more likely -- loses much of its force; and there is no real reason (that I can think of) that JRRT needed to change _his_ mind about this passage once the Balrogs became Maiar.

I see little reason for Balrogs to become slower, once imagined as Maiar, for example.


__________

Also, not only is there no evidence for Balrogs being able to travel spiritually and reform their bodies at a given destination, but that would arguably be an _extremely_ powerful attribute to assign to already powerful bad guys, which would likely raise questions about why they seemingly do not consistently employ such a power.


Similar, I think, to the power of flight itself arguably raising questions concerning not only other battles, but the secrecy (and battle) of Gondolin. Yes the Eagles are not to be underestimated, no doubt, but in my opinion there was a reason, even if external, that Tolkien 'withheld' the _flying_ Dragons (especially plural, as Balrogs would be even if only seven) until the War of Wrath.

Also, the flight argument is often connected to the wings argument, even though, _very generally speaking now_, in a fantastic story one may imagine creatures that fly but do not have wings.

____________

I don't think Tolkien _ever_ wanted flying Balrogs, and I think major external changes to the attributes of the Balrogath include: 

1) they would ultimately become incarnated Maiar 

B) they would become cloaked in Unlight, or a very unique kind of shadow

4) they (while slightly dubious as to _certainty _I think) were to be drastically reduced in number


----------



## Bard the Bowman

The idea of the Balrogs being able to spirtually travel great distances and reform was just me brainstorming. I was thinking perhaps in their early days they might not have been completely bound to their physical form, and had greater power. 

And all I'm saying is that they had to travel very, very, very, very fast. It states Ungoliant was strangling Melkor. So to sum things up either Melkor somehow managed to hold her off, or she was just playing around with him and tormenting him.


----------



## Bucky

Bard the Bowman said:


> And all I'm saying is that they had to travel very, very, very, very fast. It states Ungoliant was strangling Melkor. So to sum things up either Melkor somehow managed to hold her off, or she was just playing around with him and tormenting him.


 
*Actually, the text does not state Ungoliant was strangling Morgoth...

''And she enmeshed him in a web of clinging thongs to strangle him.'

... so, she put a bunch of webs around him TO strangle him, but it doesn't actually say she was in the act OF strangling him.

I do notice in the same passage it does however say that the Balrogs passed OVER Hithlum...

Humm...

I guess it's on to HoME for a closer look here.

Be back later.

*


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Okay she was attempting to strangle him and he was resisting, but with her being so great and him weaker I don't see that as much of a barrier. 

What do people think about the Balrog's spirits being able to travel at great speeds to the spot, and then reform? Although this is an incredible power I'm just saying perhaps they were able to do this at this point because it was still the early days and they weren't completely bound to their physical form? I don't necessarily like this theory, but if someone can find proof to back it, that would be great.


----------



## Elthir

Bucky said:


> I do notice in the same passage it does however say that the Balrogs passed OVER Hithlum...
> 
> Humm...




We can find examples with earth-bound creatures as well though, one of them being...

'Then Fingolfin beheld (as it seemed to him) the utter ruin of the Noldor, and the defeat beyond redress of all their houses; and filled with wrath and despair he mounted upon Rochallor his great horse and rode forth alone, and none might restrain him. He passed over Dor-nu-Fauglith like a wind amid the dust, and all that beheld his onset fled in amaze, thinking that Orome himself was come...'

Of the Ruin of Beleriand


----------



## Bard the Bowman

What do people think about the Balrog's spirits being able to travel at great speeds to the spot, and then reform? Although this is an incredible power I'm just saying perhaps they were able to do this at this point because it was still the early days and they weren't completely bound to their physical form? I don't necessarily like this theory, but if someone can find proof to back it, that would be great.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Apparently the Balrogs, in any case, were extremely fast. Remember at the Battle of Sudden Flame the rivers of fire ran down swifter than Balrogs.


----------



## Troll

Galin said:


> So in the version of _Quenta Silmarillion_ dated before _The Lord of the Rings_ was written the geography is generally in place, and at the end of Quenta Silmarillion: '... and out of the pits of Angband there issued the winged dragons, that had not before been seen; for until that day no creatures of his cruel thought had yet assailed the air.' Keeping in mind too, that Balrogs were not Maiar here, and had been wrought, or made, by Morgoth.


 
Seems to me that that's pretty clear that Balrogs weren't meant to fly... Of course, they could still have wings anyway, since wings are cool.

Either way, flying or running, the Balrogs have to be damn fast and Morgoth must yell hella loud, as we're talking a course of over 100 miles in what must have been only minutes (the longest minutes of Morgoth's life in all likelihood). Even flying, that's extraordinary speed.

This could be an issue of will - where Morgoth commands his servants to be, they simply _are_. Neat trick, if you can pull it off.


----------



## DerBerggeist

Having seen the movies, it's very hard to picture a balrog without wings. That being said, I know PJ's depiction of balrogs was wrong; it was too big. However, beside its size, the balrog in the movie was well-done. I like that it appeared to be made out of stone instead of flesh. And the wings were done _almost_ perfectly: they were a little too "visible". I think the whole point of the passage in the books is to make it seem like it might have wings, but they're more a result of the shadow that the balrog emits, rather than an actual body part. 

Sadly, I've yet to see a satisfactory depiction of a balrog, whether it be movie or painting by Howe, Lee or Nasmith.


----------



## Bucky

DerBerggeist said:


> Having seen the movies, it's very hard to picture a balrog without wings. That being said, I know PJ's depiction of balrogs was wrong; it was too big. However, beside its size, the balrog in the movie was well-done. I like that it appeared to be made out of stone instead of flesh. And the wings were done _almost_ perfectly: they were a little too "visible". I think the whole point of the passage in the books is to make it seem like it might have wings, but they're more a result of the shadow that the balrog emits, rather than an actual body part.
> 
> Sadly, I've yet to see a satisfactory depiction of a balrog, whether it be movie or painting by Howe, Lee or Nasmith.



*Where in the world would anybody who ever read Tolkien's works get the idea a Balrog is made of stone?*


----------



## DerBerggeist

Bucky said:


> *Where in the world would anybody who ever read Tolkien's works get the idea a Balrog is made of stone?*



Perhaps I worded that incorrectly. While I know that Tolkien certainly didn't mean for the balrog to be made of stone, I think it was interesting the Peter Jackson made it that way. It makes it seem far more ancient and sinister. But yes, I know full-well that Tolkien did not intend for that.


----------



## Gandalf White

DerBerggeist said:


> Perhaps I worded that incorrectly. While I know that Tolkien certainly didn't mean for the balrog to be made of stone, I think it was interesting the Peter Jackson made it that way. It makes it seem far more ancient and sinister. But yes, I know full-well that Tolkien did not intend for that.



I know I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I seem to recall the Balrog consisting of shadow and flame. In fact, Saruman explicitly states it is..


----------



## DerBerggeist

Gandalf White said:


> I know I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I seem to recall the Balrog consisting of shadow and flame. In fact, Saruman explicitly states it is..



Alright, I don't know what's so hard to understand about what I'm saying. Just look at the balrog in the movies. It _looks _like it's made out of stone. I'm not saying it _is._ And I know full-well that it isn't supposed to look like that. Sorry to get frustrated


----------



## Bucky

DerBerggeist said:


> Alright, I don't know what's so hard to understand about what I'm saying. Just look at the balrog in the movies. It _looks _like it's made out of stone. I'm not saying it _is._ And I know full-well that it isn't supposed to look like that. Sorry to get frustrated



*Well, you have to realize that Saruman says "Shadow & flame" is also from the movie. ;*)

However, when one reads the encounter on 'The Bridge of Khadad-dum', it says exactly that with much more words. *


----------



## DerBerggeist

Bucky said:


> *Well, you have to realize that Saruman says "Shadow & flame" is also from the movie. ;*)
> 
> However, when one reads the encounter on 'The Bridge of Khadad-dum', it says exactly that with much more words. *



Whatever Saruman says is unimportant here. Just look at the way the balrog is portrayed in the movie. Do you agree with me that it looks like stone?


----------



## Bucky

DerBerggeist said:


> Whatever Saruman says is unimportant here. Just look at the way the balrog is portrayed in the movie. Do you agree with me that it looks like stone?



*Absolutely. 100%.

I thought the same thing when I first saw it.*


----------



## danskmacabre

Hi all, first post here. 
Well, I've read through much of this thread and found it very interesting. I've seen before and taken part in debates about Balrogs and wings and my opinion has varied over the years.

I've come to the conclusion the following:

My heart tells me that Balrogs have wings, as the first time I read LOTR, I was about 12 (way back in '78). The Bridge at Khazadum scene totally grabbed me and is probably the main reason I got totally sucked into the fantasy genre in general. I remember when reading that chapter I assumed that Balrogs had wings. TBH I didn't think that deeply about it. I was too gripped by the general story to think of it as otherwise and at first glance it reads as Balrogs having wings.

HOWEVER, really my mind tells me after many years pondering, reading debates (including the debate here) that really there's no incontrovertible evidence they DID have wings.
The first part of the statement about "Darkness like wings" and the later part about purely a "Wings" reference was probably referring to the "Like wings" reference.
That and other things like Balrogs were probably not 30 foot tall like in the movie, but probably 12 foot or less and had an aura of darkness instead. 
In addition to that, it not trying to glide down when it fell down or flying in the air to blat Gandalf etc... Well I think if it had functional wings Tolkien would have more explicitly mentioned them. 

So do I think they had wings? Well certainly not functional wings anyway. I suppose it's possible since Balrogs presumably were forced into a Scary form like Sauron and Melkor were they might have demonic non-functioning wings just to look scary. They Maiar right, so they can appear as they like. But just because they can doesn't mean they would, so the absence of saying that don't doesn't really justify that they DID have wings.
So logically without some sort of direct statement of physical wings/ explicit use of wings, then it's more logical to assume they didn't.


----------



## Ásta

I always figured they/it/whatever had wings, but not like flying wings, more like fire, a dark, evil fire, just flying from their/it's/whatever's back.


----------



## Silevon

Ciryaher said:


> Of course! The book even says so.


No they do not, it is very vague owing to Tolkien's use of simile and metaphor, often using a earlier simile as a metaphor later on.

I however believe they do not, owing to the above, and to the fact that they never use them, two Balrogs fell from high places, Durin's Bane having one so twice, on the brige, and when Gandalf cast him down during their duel on Zirakzigil.

One of the main reasons many people say they do, is because when they watched the movies, they saw how "cool" the Balrog looked, the reason the film makers decided on adding the wings was "just because it looked cool."


----------



## Sméagol

I imagine the balrogs more like a tailed fiery troll rather than what it was portrayed as in the Peter Jackson films, or a smaller, wingless version of the Jackson version, simply due to description. 
Also, maybe the wings were lacking of flight purposes, such as those of an ostrich.


----------



## Floss Gibson

Pretty hard to fly on "Wings of Shadow", ask Gothmog ;-)


----------



## mallos

I think logically the Balrog can't have had wings - it _fell _off the Bridge. If it had had wings, it could have flown up again.


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Is there 


mallos said:


> I think logically the Balrog can't have had wings - it _fell _off the Bridge. If it had had wings, it could have flown up again.



Wings don't automatically help you to fly, even if you have them.

There are a LOT of flightless birds, for instance (Awk, Penguin, Kiwi, Dodo, Ostrich, Emu, Chicken, etc.).

And even among flighted birds, there are situations where the bird can fall and be unable to right itself to fly.

The Balrog fell into an abyss, which was over a crack that was 50 feet across, and around 200 feet wide. We do not know what rocky projections, or stonework existed below the bridge.

And, there is also the effect of the conflict between the Balrog and Gandalf (himself a Maia "Spirit of Fire" uncorrupted by Morgoth, much like Arien, the Maia who occupied the Vessel of the Sun). This Conflict was more than just physical, it was also spiritual (a contest of the Fëa, which in Middle-earth is just as strenuous as a Physical Contest).

On another subject:

Why is it a question of a binary choice:

• Balrogs have Wings.
• Balrogs do not have Wings.

The Ainur were able to shapeshift. We see this in any number of quotes by Tolkien.

Thus the Balrogs could _both_ have _Had Wings_, and _Not had Wings_. It would have been a matter of how they chose to clothe themselves in a body. The Nature of their Spirits, and their attitudes do seem to have been something of a constraint to their appearance given the corruption of their pure forms prior to Morgoth's perversion of their form. But nothing suggests that they did not retain some ability to alter their physical form.

This would also account for the difference in Stature between the Chamber of Mazarbul, the chasm of fire in the columned hall just before the Bridge, and over the Bridge itself.

We see such changes in other creatures within Middle-earth as well:

• Ungoliant swells to monstrous size during her gluttonous feeding upon the Two Trees and the Wells of Varda (containing the sap/Light of the Two Trees).
• Sauron fighting Huan the Hound of Valinorë. Sauron's size and shape changes many times and quickly.
• And Beorn both appearing before the Dwarves at his home, and later his appearance at the Battle of Five Armies. In the Battle of Five Armies his appearance seems to grow in size with his wrath.

This indicates that the Balrogs may have both intentional and unintentional control over their appearance, which would indeed be a feature of the sort found in Myth, and consistent with the Metaphysical Assumptions Tolkien had within Ëa, Arda, and Middle-earth (That the Fëa can be converted to Hröa, and vice versa, such as the fading of the Elves as their Hröa is consumed by their Fëa - other examples, and the most obvious is Gandalf's conversion of Fëa into energy for a Fire while in the snowstorm on the Redhorn Gate).

I do not know why people are so insistent upon Wings on Balrogs being _One-way-or-Another_, in some sort of absolutist fashion in a world where "magic" exists as a natural phenomenon among all creatures.

MB


----------



## Starbrow

I love how you come down right in the middle. Maybe you could teach our political leaders a thing or to about finding a middle way.

I guess another choice will have to be added to the poll.


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Starbrow said:


> I love how you come down right in the middle. Maybe you could teach our political leaders a thing or to about finding a middle way.
> 
> I guess another choice will have to be added to the poll.




Thank you.

And, Politically, I could be described as a "Progressive Conservative" or a "Conservative Progressive" (neither to be confused with "Libertarian," which I find to be largely contradictory in contemporary Politics). The word "Conservative" having the meaning "To Conserve that which is Valued." The trick there is that the "Value" in society isn't a given. You cannot just declare something to be of Value. That Value needs to be demonstrated by Evidence in some fashion.

As far as the Balrog Wings....

That they both do and do-not have wings comes out of the Metaphysical Properties of Ëa and Arda itself, specifically:

e = ƒmc^2.

This is derived from the Energy|Mass identity of the Physics of Our Universe. But in our Universe, we have not just no evidence of the existence of a "Soul," but rather a large amount of evidence that contradicts the existence of such (e = mc^2, and F = ma being two such examples of evidence showing that no "_Soul Stuff_" is present in our universe). 

So... To begin with a simple explanation of _e = mc^2_:

This formula says "If you add energy to a system, that energy is converted to mass relative to the velocity of the object." 

In an idea state, it would mean we could create mass out of energy as easily as we create energy out of mass (burning wood is converting mass to energy. a Nuclear Reaction, such as an Atomic Bomb, or Hydrogen bomb is a nearly idealized conversion of Mass into Energy. A Matter|Anti-Matter reaction is a *TOTAL* conversion of Mass into Energy). But until very recently, only Biology has been able to convert Energy to Mass (Cellular Metabolism, and Photosynthesis are two examples). Physicists have just recently discovered other means of converting Energy to Mass (The LHC is capable of doing so, and other particle accelerators have that ability as well).

Now... What does this have to do with Middle-earth?

Well... In Middle-earth, things _*DO have a "Soul."*_ The _Fëa_ is what Tolkien describes as every living being having. In addition to the Fëa, Tolkien describes what he calls the _Unseen world_, such as that where the Wraiths exist. Which means that in addition to the Fëa, we have other forms of "_Spiritual Stuff._" 

Really this "Spiritual Stuff" is just another form of Material/Physical Matter, but it is just something we don't have in our Universe. But this "_Spiritual Matter_" *isn't* Atomic/Molecular Matter (What we call "Baryonic Matter" in our Universe. Ëa/Arda/Middle-earth would also contain Baryonic Matter as well. It is what the _Hröa_ is composed of. And the Rocks, Air, Trees, etc.). But this "_Spiritual Stuff_" obeys the same Laws of Physics as does everything else. It cannot be said to be "Mass" exactly (the 'm' in the equations "_e = mc^2_" and "_F = ma_"), but it does have properties _LIKE MASS. _And within Middle-earth, like Mass, _Spiritual Stuff_ can be converted to Energy, and Energy converted to _Spiritual Stuff_. To add this _Spiritual Stuff_ to Physics (i.e. to describe the Metaphysics of _Spirit Stuff_) you need to create a term to describe it, and its relationship to Matter and Energy. Labeling this term 'ƒ' (For "Fëa, or "Spirit Stuff" or whatever you want to call it - technically I have a more technical name for it, but I don't want to get into that here).

Thus you get the formula:

_e = ƒ_m_c_^2

Now, here is where the Balrog's Wings come from (Or the Bodies of the Ainur):

Since: 

Mass = Energy

and

_F_ëa = Energy

This means that Matter (mass) can be converted to Energy. And then the Energy converted to _F_ëa. 

Or, vice Versa:

_F_ëa converted to Energy, and then the Energy converted to Mass (Matter).

So, the Spiritual Body (_F_ëa) of the Balrog is used to manifest its Physical Body by converting the _F_ëa into Energy, and then the Energy into Mass.

That would mean that the Balrog (or any Ainur, for that matter), have a broad range of options for the proportions, composition, size, and other physical properties of its material body, depending upon the relative "mass" (size and density) of its _F_ëa. Well... And the nature of that _F_ëa, since we see many examples where the Ainur lose their ability to manifest in certain forms. This loss is related to the properties of the Stuff that makes up the _Fëa. _It, like Baryonic Matter, would likely be composed of many constituent particles and sub-particles (for a lack of a better word), and that the properties of these particles and sub-particles would determine the Nature of the _F_ëa or other types of _Spiritual Stuff_ that exists within Ëa/Arda.

This is also the basis for how pretty much _ANY_ example of what we would think of as "Magic" functions within Ëa/Arda as well, so that it would be basically a "Natural" part of that world (Tolkien mentions several times this distinction between the apparently "Magical" properties of many inhabitants of Arda, which he thought of as "Natural Properties," and the rather Evil applications of "Magic" of the Occult or Necromantic varieties that he described Melkor-Morgoth and his Servants - notably Sauron - using, which were perversions of the "Natural Properties;" they were forcing things into existence that disturbed the functioning of both "Physical" and "Spiritual" worlds that make up Ëa/Arda).

MB


----------



## Silevon

> Wings don't automatically help you to fly, even if you have them.
> 
> There are a LOT of flightless birds, for instance (Awk, Penguin, Kiwi, Dodo, Ostrich, Emu, Chicken, etc.).
> 
> And even among flighted birds, there are situations where the bird can fall and be unable to right itself to fly.
> 
> The Balrog fell into an abyss, which was over a crack that was 50 feet across, and around 200 feet wide. We do not know what rocky projections, or stonework existed below the bridge.
> 
> And, there is also the effect of the conflict between the Balrog and Gandalf (himself a Maia "Spirit of Fire" uncorrupted by Morgoth, much like Arien, the Maia who occupied the Vessel of the Sun). This Conflict was more than just physical, it was also spiritual (a contest of the Fëa, which in Middle-earth is just as strenuous as a Physical Contest).
> 
> On another subject:
> 
> Why is it a question of a binary choice:
> 
> • Balrogs have Wings.
> • Balrogs do not have Wings.
> 
> The Ainur were able to shapeshift. We see this in any number of quotes by Tolkien.
> 
> Thus the Balrogs could _both_ have _Had Wings_, and _Not had Wings_. It would have been a matter of how they chose to clothe themselves in a body. The Nature of their Spirits, and their attitudes do seem to have been something of a constraint to their appearance given the corruption of their pure forms prior to Morgoth's perversion of their form. But nothing suggests that they did not retain some ability to alter their physical form.
> 
> This would also account for the difference in Stature between the Chamber of Mazarbul, the chasm of fire in the columned hall just before the Bridge, and over the Bridge itself.
> 
> We see such changes in other creatures within Middle-earth as well:
> 
> • Ungoliant swells to monstrous size during her gluttonous feeding upon the Two Trees and the Wells of Varda (containing the sap/Light of the Two Trees).
> • Sauron fighting Huan the Hound of Valinorë. Sauron's size and shape changes many times and quickly.
> • And Beorn both appearing before the Dwarves at his home, and later his appearance at the Battle of Five Armies. In the Battle of Five Armies his appearance seems to grow in size with his wrath.
> 
> This indicates that the Balrogs may have both intentional and unintentional control over their appearance, which would indeed be a feature of the sort found in Myth, and consistent with the Metaphysical Assumptions Tolkien had within Ëa, Arda, and Middle-earth (That the Fëa can be converted to Hröa, and vice versa, such as the fading of the Elves as their Hröa is consumed by their Fëa - other examples, and the most obvious is Gandalf's conversion of Fëa into energy for a Fire while in the snowstorm on the Redhorn Gate).
> 
> I do not know why people are so insistent upon Wings on Balrogs being _One-way-or-Another_, in some sort of absolutist fashion in a world where "magic" exists as a natural phenomenon among all creatures.


This would make sense, if Balrogs can change their shape. I do not believe they can, despite the fact that they were maiar who were seduced by Morgoth. Yes, they are maiar, but maiar cannot change their form at will all the time, for example the Istari are maiar who donned a physical forms which restricted their powers, they cannot change their form while in their restrictive bodies. If the Balrogs are similar to the Istari in that they have taken on a restrictive physical form then I think they are incapable of shape changing. Are they like the Istari though? Why would they take on a form less powerful? I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Balrogs had donned the physical shape of a fire demon, but I cannot find a specific source, and perhaps Morgoth made them don these physical forms so that they could not challenge his authority, or the authority of his lieutenant Sauron.
Besides this, we have never seen the Balrogs change shape, if they could change shape, why wouldn't they do it when they needed it most? Why did Durin's Bane not change form while fighting Gandalf atop Zirakzigil? Or Gothmog change form while drowning in the fountain? Or any other time during any other fight? What would Morgoth even need the dragons for if his Balrogs could become Dragons at will?
Also, maiar, and valar can lose this ability, like Morgoth and Sauron. So it is possible the Balrogs also lost the ability like them.
And lastly I leave this quote from Tolkien himself

"
"Here Pengolodh adds a long note on the use of hroar by the Valar. In brief he says that though in origin a 'self-arraying', it may tend to approach the state of 'incarnation', especially with the lesser members of that order (the Maiar). 'It is said that the longer and the more the same hroa is used, the greater is the bond of habit, and the less do the 'self-arrayed' desire to leave it.'
<snip>
'Melkor alone of the Great became at last bound to a bodily form; but that was because of the use that he made of this in his purpose to become Lord of the Incarnate, and of the great evils that he did in the visible body. Also he had dissipated his native powers in the control of his agents and servants, so that he became in the end, in himself and without their support, a weakened thing, consumed by hate and unable to restore himself from the state into which he had fallen. Even his visible form he could no longer master, so that its hideousness could not any longer be masked, and it showed forth the evil of his mind. So it was also with even some of his greatest servants, as in these later days we see: they became wedded to the forms of their evil deeds, and if these bodies were taken from them or destroyed, they were nullified, until they had rebuilt a semblance of their former habitations, with which they could continue the evil courses in which they had become fixed.' (Pengolodh here evidently refers to Sauron in particular, from whose arising he fled at last from Middle-earth.)"
VT 39, Osanwe-kenta note 5


----------



## Olorgando

In the single-digit pages of this thread, I had the "brilliant" idea of consulting what might be considered an authoritative book on LoTR generally, Wayne G. Hammond and Christina Scull's "The Lord of The Rings - A Reader's Companion" from 2005 (I have the Houghton Mifflin one).
Um, yes.
Page 296 dealing with the chapter "The Bridge of Khazâd-dûm", statement from the book quoted "... *the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings* …"
Comment to the quote: "This and the statement two paragraphs later, that 'it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall', _have led to much discussion among readers as to whether Balrogs have wings._" (Italics etc. mine).
_*headbang*_
Upon then *still* stubbornly plowing ahead into the 20s of the pages of comments, I succumbed to exhaustion. But a vague suspicion had been sneaking up on me all the while, which then kind of formed itself into a vision (I've had this kind of vision often, and no, it does *not* require medication):
The "shade" of JRRT (imagine this for yourself as you please) sitting somewhere, smoking a pipe (so my shadehaven does allow smoking), reading this thread and perhaps countless others like it, and having a resounding laugh at the discussion (and no one would have more right to do so). I do *not* envision JRRT doing a ROTFL thing. I would think he inadvertently bit off the stem of his pipe while laughing (the other obvious pipe-wrecker would be "who or what is Tom Bombadil?"). And I also envision dear old Irmo Mandos (it need not be in his Halls) standing behind JRRT when the pipe broke, and saying reproachfully: "John Ronald, that was not nice!"


----------



## Goldilocks Gamgee

Let's see...


Here is the first time Balrog's maybe wings are mentioned:


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


It says "like two vast wings". This is not proof that it has no wings, though if it is suggested that (for example) Gandalf's beard looked like silver, it probably doesn't mean that Gandalf's beard was actually made out of silver. So here, it is not very clear. Soon enough, however, we get informed:


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


It says "wings were spread from wall to wall". That is indeed proof that the Balrog has wings!

Good day to you.


----------



## Miguel

Some Balrogs having wings and others lacking them works for me. I prefer everyone of them to be different from each other but also to share some likeness. Also, i always imagine Gothmog as the smallest one. El mas pequeño y el mas cabron.


----------



## Halasían

Goldilocks Gamgee said:


> It says "wings were spread from wall to wall". That is indeed proof that the Balrog has wings!


They were quite useless since he 'fell' and didn't fly back up.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Perhaps -- but he'd just gotten a pretty thorough beating.😀


----------



## Aldarion

Goldilocks Gamgee said:


> Let's see...
> 
> 
> Here is the first time Balrog's maybe wings are mentioned:
> 
> It says "like two vast wings". This is not proof that it has no wings, though if it is suggested that (for example) Gandalf's beard looked like silver, it probably doesn't mean that Gandalf's beard was actually made out of silver. So here, it is not very clear. Soon enough, however, we get informed:
> 
> It says "wings were spread from wall to wall". That is indeed proof that the Balrog has wings!
> 
> Good day to you.


Given that the shadow was already specified to be "like wings", then those "wings" in second quote can be read as a shorthand for "wing-like shadow".


----------



## Olorgando

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Perhaps -- but he'd just gotten a pretty thorough beating.😀


Actually, not (yet) when Gandalf broke the bridge. The pummeling started after Gandalf had caught up to the Balrog during their fall.

Apparently Glamdring (formerly Turgon's sword) was a fearsome enough weapon to make the Moria Balrog turn tail after Gandalf had hacked him with it (and Fingolfin's sword Ringil gave even *Morgoth* seven wounds that never properly healed).

That is why it is my firm conviction, in contrast to one of PJ's worst travesties, had Gandalf (the White) taken Glamdring to the Witch-king at the gates of Minas Tirith, what would have remained of the Witch-king would have resemble a rather large pile of sliced salami - if anything would have remained, as Glamdring must certainly have been vastly more powerful than Merry's dagger from the Barrow Downs, and would have taken the W-k out straight away, and suffered no damage in doing so.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Olorgando said:


> Actually, not (yet) when Gandalf broke the bridge.


True -- I was thinking of the "death spiral" off the peak of Silvertine, but maybe Gandalf hung onto him, during the fall into the pit?

Or maybe it was so dark, he didn't know which way was up? 😁


----------



## Gothmog

Miguel said:


> Some Balrogs having wings and others lacking them works for me. I prefer everyone of them to be different from each other but also to share some likeness. Also, i always imagine Gothmog as the smallest one. El mas pequeño y el mas cabron.


I prefer each reader to create their own view of the (wingless) Balrogs  However, I do wonder how you see Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs, would be the smallest one?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Gothmog! You're alive!


----------



## Miguel

Gothmog said:


> I do wonder how you see Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs, would be the smallest one?



Nasmith's artwork compared to the Balrog we saw in the FOTR gave me that idea.


----------



## Ealdwyn

I love it when someone resurrects the wings vs no wings debate


----------



## Gothmog

Miguel said:


> Nasmith's artwork compared to the Balrog we saw in the FOTR gave me that idea.


I see, so your view of this came from an artist inspired by Tolkien and someone who seems to have skimmed the books and gained a superficial and mistaken view of almost everything concerned with the stories. Balrogs were approximately twice the height of an Elf/Human of the first age, therefore about 14 ft or so. Since Gothmog was the Lord of Balrogs, it is not likely that he would have been smaller than the others, it would be more fitting that one in such a position would be the largest of them.


----------



## Gothmog

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Gothmog! You're alive!


Yes and I have found once more the road to Middle-earth


----------



## Miguel

Gothmog said:


> Balrogs were approximately twice the height of an Elf/Human of the first age, therefore about 14 ft or so.


^
I like this.

I think is also that i'm always used to see him super huge in artworks.


----------



## Gothmog

Miguel said:


> ^
> I like this.
> 
> I think is also that i'm always used to see him super huge in artworks.


Well, Gothmog is a somewhat "Larger than life" character


----------



## Miguel

Gothmog said:


> Well, Gothmog is a somewhat "Larger than life" character



Nasmith's take on it is still the best looking for me. I remember seeing another one depicting the bridge of Khazad-dûm where the Balrog didn't look as big and it was really well done but can't remember the artist.


----------



## Elthir

Gothmog said:


> Balrogs were approximately twice the height of an Elf/Human of the first age, therefore about 14 ft or so.



While I'm a fan of smallish Balrogs with shadows that can be manipulated -- and thus make them seem larger -- this information concerning balrogs being about twice the height of an Elf comes from a very very early source (the early Fall of Gondolin, the Duel with Glorfindel).

In very early sources, for example, Tolkien's Glorfindel could have been as tall/short as a human child!

Did Tolkien still imagine Balrogs to be nearly double the size of an Elf, decades later when his Elves not only got taller but ended up being notably tall (a post in itself)?

Possibly.

If we may take the evidence of _The Lord of the Rings_ *draft *texts, Durin's Bane was clearly seen and *"no more than man-high" *Then it is not clearly seen, Tolkien noting to himself.



> Alter description of Balrog. It seemed to be of man's shape, but its form could not be plainly discerned. It felt larger than it looked.



And for the final, author-published text: *" . . . it was like a great shadow, in the middle-of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater . . ."*

The Balrogs are now obscured by shadow, "greater" than man shape -- which is quite open to interpretation of course -- but given that we started with man-high, my opinion is that the creature itself didn't get much greater, but _its shadow_ could make it seem huge.

In any case, in a very late text Tolkien would note to himself that: *"The duel of Glorfindel and the Demon may need revision." *JRRT, The Peoples of Middle-Earth, Last Writings, Glorfindel text II, note 10

It may?


----------



## Gothmog

Elthir, While I agree with what you say, the use of the "Twice the Height of an Elf/Human" will give us a maximum of 14 ft as apposed to 40 ft+ as in much of the artworks and in the film.


----------



## Oromedur

I find so many artistic representations of Balrogs to be unsatisfying. I wish people would restrict themselves to the written material and try to interpret that rather than engage in a drawn and painted form of fan fiction.


----------



## The Golden Flower

I think it's clear Balrogs did not have wings, except those made of shadow. Being described as "of man's shape" just reinforces the argument (From Elthirs post above). While Balrogs with wings look awesome (Hence my profile picture of Glorfindel battling a WINGED Balrog) I think a wingless description is the most true to Tolkien's intent.


----------



## kingoftheamericas

Both?


----------



## Goldilocks Gamgee

Halasían said:


> They were quite useless since he 'fell' and didn't fly back up.


Penguins have wings, yet they don't fly. It could be similar to that, with the Balrog.


----------



## The Golden Flower

Ahh, yes. Schrodinger's balrog, simultaneously having both wings and no wings.


----------



## Elthir

Goldilocks Gamgee said:


> Penguins have wings, yet they don't fly. It could be similar to that, with the Balrog.



Or to look at it another way: modern penguins have flippers for swimmin 

In any case, all I know is, if I were a Maia who could take an incarnate shape with wings, I'd make sure my "vast" wings could be used for flight!

🦋


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Halasían said:


> They were quite useless since he 'fell' and didn't fly back up.


To return to this, I prefer to believe he was "stunned by the Secret Fire".


----------



## ulfang

I always though of balrogs as having wings but after reading through the entirety of this thread I don't know anymore but when i think about I see it without wings though my original image is still with wings


----------



## Elthir

Leaves Galadriel's lament: _*yéni únótime ve rámar aldaron!*
long years numberless as the wings of trees!_

Clouds _The Notion Club Papers: *'A great cloud coming up slowly out of the west was eating up the stars. As it approached it opened two vast sable wings spreading north and south.'*_

Sails_ Tal Elmar: *'... in greater numbers they come then: two ships or more together stuffed with men and not goods and ever one of the accursed ships hath black wings.'*_

Darkness_ The Return of the King: *'Over the land there lies a long shadow, **westward reaching wings of darkness.'*_

Balrog of Moria _ My Brain_* temporary shadow wings*


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Bad Elthir! Bad boy!


----------



## Elthir

*Ando* made me do it.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen




----------



## m4r35n357

If Balrogs had wings:

We would have had air-strikes on Gondolin (& pretty much everywhere in the First Age).
Durin's Bane would not have fallen down the chasm, or needed to use the bridge in the first place!


----------



## Olorgando

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> To return to this, I prefer to believe he was "stunned by the Secret Fire".
> View attachment 9404
> 
> View attachment 9405





Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Bad Elthir! Bad boy!
> View attachment 9438


Comparing these two posts by S-eS, I note the pictures his posts adhere to an old convention of giving the baddies bat wings, while the goodies have bird wings (reputedly pronounced "boid" by Brooklyn Dodgers fans). There is one irony to this: bats are mammals, while birds are the last surviving dinosaurs, and thus more closely related to reptiles - though birds are warm-blooded (as several species of dinosaurs are suspected to be).

But that brings me to a scientific objection to any beings having wings coming out of their backs *in addition* to having four extremities.
All vertebrates, to which dragons as a supposed form of reptiles as well as anything taking human form belong, are tetrapods - having four extremities. Whatever faults one may find with PJ's take on TH, his team at least got Smaug right: resembling a gigantic bat - properly he should have resembled a pterosaur, and there are significant differences to mammalian bats in the construction of the "hand", as there are in both to birds.

Now the Balrog(s) clearly had human shape: two legs, two arms; two *additional* wings ...

... the Balrog an insect?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner




----------



## Olorgando

Well, there was this character in the "Get Smart" secret agent parody series; from Wikipedia:

"Hymie the Robot (Dick Gautier) is a humanoid robot built by KAOS, but in his first mission, Smart manages to turn him to the side of CONTROL. *Hymie had a tendency to take instructions too literally*."

No, I'm not a bot, but I found some of the scenes in which Hymie takes figures of speech literally hilarious. A form of _reductio ad absurdum_, and there is more absurdity in everyday speech (at least in the two languages I'm fluent in) than we realize in everyday usage (which also has a tendency towards sloppiness ... 😁 )


----------



## Halasían

Olorgando said:


> Well, there was this character in the "Get Smart" secret agent parody series; from Wikipedia:
> 
> "Hymie the Robot (Dick Gautier) is a humanoid robot built by KAOS, but in his first mission, Smart manages to turn him to the side of CONTROL. *Hymie had a tendency to take instructions too literally*."
> 
> No, I'm not a bot, but I found some of the scenes in which Hymie takes figures of speech literally hilarious. A form of _reductio ad absurdum_, and there is more absurdity in everyday speech (at least in the two languages I'm fluent in) than we realize in everyday usage (which also has a tendency towards sloppiness ... 😁 )


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

For anyone who'd like to have their own Balrog, these are inexpensive:

The wings are separate:

So you can have them "With" or not, as you prefer. They're not exactly "vast", in any event.

This fellow did a nice paint job on his:


You can read his review here:









Fire Demons - Balrogs (set 1)


Made by Dark Alliance . These things are big, not quite as big as the Balrog in the LotR´s film, The Fellowship of the Ring and although...




paulsbods.blogspot.com





They're soft plastic, and cost around $10 for a box of two.


----------



## Olorgando

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> For anyone who'd like to have their own Balrog, these are inexpensive:
> The wings are separate ...


With those dinky wings, the only "flying" any Balrog would be capable of is a stone-like drop adhering to every theory of gravity known ...


----------



## Olorgando

Reminds me of what some wise guy / gal once said:

"It's not falling off a high place that's dangerous, it's the sudden stop at the end." Truly helpful ...


----------



## Olorgando

Halasían said:


> View attachment 10805


Talkin' to yourself, Hal? 😂


----------



## Halasían

Olorgando said:


> Talkin' to yourself, Hal? 😂


No, I was referring to the person I quoted and his analysis of 'Get Smart'.


----------



## Rōmānus

They have no wings they just have shadows that may appear as such. Being wrapped in shadows that appear like wings does not give balrogs actual wings anymore than my hand shadows on a wall are wings that I might possess.


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Gothmog said:


> It would seem that you are not.
> 
> *Why do you want everything to be of one view? Only one way to interpret the whole of the writings of Tolkin*[sic]?
> 
> I agree! He was marvelous at making sure that we would have his view of things he ment us to see, feel or hear. Does that prove that he did mean us to see the Balrog in a particular way? No, it means that when he wanted us to see, feel or hear something in a certain way he would do so. Otherwise he would leave some ambiguity so that we could use our own imagination and thereby be part of the story!
> 
> Yes, The shadows of wings could have turned out to be actual wings, but they could also have turned out to be shadows so dark as to seem solid. As I said it is a matter of interpretation.
> 
> As for the Ostrich, it's wings are to small to bear the weight of it's body in flight.
> 
> The penguin uses it's wings to "fly" under the water. The movements of it's wings to travel under water are the same that other birds use to move through the air.


Emphasis mine, and obviously that of *Gothmog* (on a side note, as per Tolkien’s comments in *Letters* re: The Beer Stein he received with the _Ring Inscription _engraved upon it: Why someone would wish to take on themselves the name of the Greatest Servant of Evil to the Greatest Evil in a given Universe is something of a tragedy).

*Also… It seems that “Old Farts” are numerous on Tolkien forums given the history of Fantasy and Science-Fiction literature first began to blossom in Popular Culture as a whole in the 1970s, when many of us were in our early-years to teens, or even 20s… I would be among that crowd it seems¹. *

But the issue of “One was to interpret something” is rather important here, even if something that is perilous concerning Middle-earth given its Foundations in Catholic Theology.

As I have pointed-out previously, the _Body_ of any Ainur is something that is to them like our Clothing is to us. And, as such, under _normal circumstances_, the Ainur can change that Body, or Hröa, as easily as we change our clothing.

The most recent publication on Middle-earth, Carl Hostetter’s *The Nature of Middle-earth*, has a chapter on this very subject concerning the Ainur, and the relationship of the Ainur to the Hröar of Middle-earth, including their own bodies. This chapter is principally Tolkien’s own ‘thoughts’ on the subject, as Tolkien seemed to have difficulties with “visualization” unless he was writing (having studied the Cognitive Sciences rather extensively, as that was the secondary major of my second trip through a University as an adult, this issue is one that seems to have lately gotten rather a lot of attention²). 

But in exploring the issue of the Hröar of the Ainur, he also speaks of how the use of a particular visage, or “specific bodily appearance,” can become a ‘Habit³’ to an Ainur, and that if an Ainur were to become too attached to such a Hröa, it might become “stuck” in that form.

I am getting to the ‘wings’ in a moment here…

But the Hröar used by the Ainur would become more ‘habitual’ if that Ainur were to perform certain actions that are related solely to the biological functions of the bodies of the Children of Eru (which the Ainur had no need of, given that they can support the ‘biological needs’ of a Hröa with their Fëa⁴), *especially if* these actions were involved with “the pleasures of the body,” such as eating, drinking (probably smoking a pipe), or… sex.

The piece explores principally how Melian became “fixed” in the body she wore as Thingol’s wife, but he also mentioned how Morgoth, Sauron, and the other Maiar in his service became trapped in their bodies by not just the indulgence of the body, but via the commission of acts of Evil, or violations of the Laws of Eru (_Axan_).

But the inability to alter the _identity_ of their Hröar did not mean the inability of a given Ainur to alter the Hröa at all. The appearance might be altered in subtle fashions, such as increasing or decreasing the stature (size/height) of that body, or in the addition of properties necessary for any given situation.

Like Wings.

That would not alter the fixed ‘Habit’ of the Hröa of a given Ainur, but would only provide a form of ’decoration’ of that Hröa. 

Thus, to arrive back at the point I have been making since the whole issue of “Do Balrogs have wings?” became a _Thing_:

The Balrogs have wings when they want to need them, and they have no wings when they do not want or need them.

So the very form of the question itself is flawed.

MB

1. I even got beat-up by Michael Moorcock in a “debate” over the nature of Tolkien’s works (in which *I was completely in the wrong *about, and which Michael was fully within his rights to beat the issue into me as he did — As a bonus, he did say that I better understood the nature of his *Eternal Champion* than I did Tolkien’s works, possibly due to my familiarity with the works of Joseph Campbell, who would a year or so later become an actual professor (even if guest) of a class I took on Art History that dealt with how Myth is depicted in Art through the ages, and how the relationship of the Art to the viewer changed over time; as-well-as a familiarity with, and access to, Greg Stafford’s Gloranthan Myths) sometime in the late-70s, or first two years of the 1980s at a convention in England. I had been introduced by the owner of a miniature company with whom we were both acquainted… 

2. It seems that rather a lot of people cannot “Visualize” certain things solely via “thought” or “thinking” about it. This seems to be something that is especially salient in the distinctions between those who go into the Visual Arts, and the rest of the population as a primary distinction, and then between the “rest of the population” and those who are unable to _Visually Imagine_ at all. Tolkien seems to have been in this latter category, as we have evidence in *Letters* of statements to the effect that his being “unable to write” would be akin to being “unable to think.” (from the _Introduction_ and _Letter #248_ implying that loosing his ability to write would hamper his ability to do anything, much less “think”).

3. Here Tolkien uses the word “Habit” to mean _both_ the performing of an action out of familiarity, *and* as the liturgical ‘Habit” of a Monk or Nun.

4. Tolkien is here unaware that he gives to Middle-earth, and indeed all of Eä, a part of its Metaphysical Foundations by revealing that the Fëa and Hröa can become equivalent in terms of exchange of “energy” (the term as applied to pure Physics, or the = mc² variety, only in Eä, it would be e = mƒc², where ‘ƒ’ would be the component of Fëa involved with the calculation of energy available). But Tolkien would himself never explore this, even though countless other Catholic and/or Christian Theologians *would* explore just that very thing (although few post-Einstein, and fewer still post-Popperian Falsification).


----------



## Þráinn Þórhallsson

Regardless if the Balrog in Moria had Wings or not. I prefer depictions of him without them. If that Balrog had wings he would not have fallen so easily down.


----------



## Ealdwyn




----------



## Bunny

Uminya said:


> Of course! The book even says so.


The book actually says "


Uminya said:


> Of course! The book even says so.


The actual quote is, "...the shadow that was about it reached out like two vast wings."
And if they have wings, how would one die from being knocked off a cliff by Glorfindel? It could have flown to safety. Or glided, if Glorfindel made it too heavy.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner




----------



## Erestor Arcamen

Oh god, not again


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Bunny said:


> The book actually says "
> 
> The actual quote is, "...the shadow that was about it reached out like two vast wings."
> And if they have wings, how would one die from being knocked off a cliff by Glorfindel? It could have flown to safety. Or glided, if Glorfindel made it too heavy.


You do know that penguins, Kiwis, Ostriches, the Extinct Terror Birds, etc…

That they had wings, but did not fly.

Also…

My sister is an Ornithologist. You can find her as the San Diego Zoo’s Head of Pacific Endangered Bird Species, among other responsibilities… Or at least you will soon (on their website, as she just started a few months ago, previously being *The* Curator of the Houston Zoo).

But here is one of the things she is most famous for, _Texas/Atwater’s Prairie Chicken_ survival:





Attwater’s Prairie Chicken – Texas Fauna Project







www.texasfauna.org





Her expertise has come in handy for all manner of things related to Tolkien where my own is insufficient (Comparative Myth, Art and Religious History, Cognitive Science — Computational Linguistics, and the study of “Belief“, Computational & Systems Biology — Neurosystems, and Political/Moral/Ethical Science/Theory, plus a litany of Philosophy, Metaphysics, Epistemology, and more Theology than I can stand).

Such as dealing with the ever annoying _Fly the Eagles to Mordor (To Give Sauron back his Ring, because the Sammath Naur is *INSIDE ORODRUIN*, and dropping the Ruling Ring into the caldera does nothing but inconvenience the Nazgûl Sauron throws into Orodruin to fish-out His Ring)_, Or how big a bat can be and still fly (She is also fairly well-versed in small-mammals, including Bats, given that most Zoos tend to foist all of the flying things that aren’t bugs onto the Aviary, given that this is also where the bats tend to feed best at night…. Turns out pretty freaking big, especially when you add in the conversion of Fëa to/from Hröa, or in the case of Ainur (Balrogs included) into the Nessar of their “Bodies.”

But… One of those things that I learned.

*Birds die all the time from falling off things!*

While there are no publicly available sources to demonstrate this, given it is pretty rare, one of the problems Birds have with dying from falling off things is if a Predator leaps on them.

So, say like a Superhuman First Age Noldorim leaping onto a Balrog intent on killing him, and the two fall off the cliff they are on.

Glorfindel died of the same thing the Balrog did, at least unless Glorfindel killed it before the *sudden stop at the bottom*, when Glorfindel would have died at the latest. Same with the Balrog.

You have Four options here:

1. Both Die before hitting the ground.
2. Both die from hitting the Ground.
3. Glorfindel kills the Balrog before hitting the mountainside or bottom, and then dies when that happens (*NOTE!!! *_*This needn’t be AT THE BOTTOM of the cliff. People tend to die long before they get to the bottom of mountains they fall off of, due to hitting it many times on the way down.*)_
4. The Balrog kills Glorfindel before hitting the mountainside or bottom, and then dies when that happens.

Oh!

And birds that get pounced by predators, and they fall off a mountain…

The predator tends to mess-up their wings, making it difficult to fly, if not impossible. Again we have a dead bird or Balrog hitting the ground.

Having wings doesn’t magically save you, even if they are _Magical Wings_.

And again:

Balrogs are Ainur, and their Bodies/Hröar are not the Nessar (Materials; Singular: Nessa) that are the Bodies/Hröar of a Human, Elf, Dwarf, Orc, Hobbit, Wolf, Ent, Tree, Weasel, Raven, Worm, Dragon, etc.…

In fact, the Hröar of the Ainur are not even Hröar, but are instead called _Fanar_:



> _*The Nature of Middle-earth, p. 243: *_
> 
> The old word fana thus became used in Quenya only in this special and exalted sense: the visible form or “raiment” (which included both the assumed bodily shape and its vesture) in which a Vala or one of the lesser angelic spirits, not by nature incarnate, presented itself to bodily eyes. Since these fanar usually appeared “radiant” (in some degree), as if lit by a light within, the word fana acquired in Quenya an additional sense as ‘shining shape’, and this addition of radiance affected other derivatives of the same “base”.
> 
> Valar ar Maiar fantaner nassentar fanainen ve quenderinwe koar al larmar: (Nasser ar Kenime Kantar Valaron ar Maiaron: a preserved fragment of Quenya lore): “The Valar and Maiar veiled their true-being in fanar, like to Elvish bodies and raiment” from “The Natures and Visible Shapes of the V. and M.”



The Fanar of the Ainur were made of different _Nessar _than that of the Children of Eru, or the other creatures and living things (Flora and Fauna) of Middle-earth.

And the Fanar were created by their O-sanwe (Minds), which could manifest the Nessar required to form the Fanar conceived-of by a given Ainur, whether Maiar or Valar, Faithful or Fallen, allowing them to contrive forms that were other than that mimicking a _Child of Eru_. 

This would include manifesting as a beast, or as a creature of their own imagination (such as Sauron being known as a “Shapechanger” in his youth, given his facility for/with changing his Fana rapidly, but he was not singular in that regard).

Later in _*The Nature of Middle-earth*_, we have an exploration of the Fallen Ainur in the same chapter, where it describes the consequences for the Ainur of “Wearing the Same Fanar as a habit/Habit.”

Here Tolkien uses “Habit” in both the Noun and Verb sense of the “Habituation” of the Fanar to a given appearance, and as a “Habit” in the form of that worn by Clergy.

Doing things that only the Children of Eru must do could cause this “Habituation” making it difficult for an Ainur to alter their Fana very easily. And some things tend to “Trap” the Ainur within a given Fana, unless that Ainur divest themselves of all Raiment/Fanar, and return to Valinor to recover.

Melian did this when she conceived a child. In doing this, she could not change her fana from that in which she conceived the child. She only did so after the death of Thingol, when she abandoned Middle-earth in her grief.

The Balrogs would similarly be “trapped” in a given fana, but *not with the finality of conceiving a Child.* Tolkien points out that Murder is something that causes the Fanar to become habitual. Although in this case not completely fixed, as would conceiving a child. 

So the Balrogs could have wings if they wished to have them. This includes flying with them. But Tolkien tells us that such changes are not easily done as swiftly as we see Sauron do in the fight with Beren, Lúthien, and Huan.

Balrog Wings are a thing *BOTH *”T_here_” or _“Existing,_” _*and/or*_ “_Not There_,” or “_Absent._” So the wings can either exist or not. *AND* the Wings can *BOTH Exist AND NOT* _*at the same time*_. Sort of like how the Trinity works in Catholicism or other forms of Christianity that are not Unitarian, but Trinitarian like the Catholics.

MB


----------



## Olorgando

Erestor Arcamen said:


> Oh god, not again


Balrogwings and Bombadil are *never* going to go away - the eternal zombies ... 😁


----------



## Olorgando

Matthew Bailey said:


> You do know that penguins, Kiwis, Ostriches, the Extinct Terror Birds, etc… That they had wings, but did not fly.


Matt, I really enjoy your (rather rare) posts. But it's not the first time that I've thought "Lawks! These are almost the only posts that make those of @Alcuin look short ... 😵😁😉


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Olorgando said:


> Balrogwings and Bombadil are *never* going to go away - the eternal zombies ... 😁



A post that won’t give you much trouble to read:

The sad thing is that Tolkien tells us *exactly* who and what _Tom Bombadil _is. 

And whether Balrogs have wings.

He just does not do so in a way that is explicit, and direct, saying “Tom Bombadil is X, Y, Z.,“ and/or “Balrogs do/don’t have wings.”

He does so via the Secondary Sources, that themselves reference tertiary sources (or in the case of Tom, other Primary Sources not explicitly about Middle-earth, despite telling you a freaking lot _about _Middle-earth) where the answers are spelled-out in definitions that Tolkien uses in the Secondary Sources when referring to them. 

Same thing with “the f’ing Eagles, man” (to Paraphrase Jeff Lebowski, “_The Dude_”).

Technically this is true of any question it is possible to ask about Middle-earth. Tolkien, via the Classical Philosophers and Catholic Theologians & Philosophers who form the Foundations of Middle-earth. You will find either an explicit, direct answer; a set of possible answers; or the general Form and Domain of the possible answers while categorically excluding anything not in that domain (Falsification as the basis of Science technically was not formalized until long after Tolkien had conceived of Middle-earth — Basically in the 1950s/60s by Popper — but Falsification remains the best test of any possible hypothesis that can be formulated, thus giving us the “Domains” of such answers that exclude everything else).

MB


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Matthew Bailey said:


> Tolkien tells us *exactly* who and what _Tom Bombadil _is.


You are, of course, referring to the series of articles by Priya Seth:









Angel and Demon, Gospel and Fairy-story


Introduction: Many months ago I started out by audaciously proclaiming Tom Bombadil was uniquely associated to an abstract concept. That being a role which allegorized the ‘audience’ …




priyasethtolkienfan.wordpress.com





In which she demonstrates conclusively that Tom is no other than the Archangel Michael.

You are, aren't you?


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> You are, of course, referring to the series of articles by Priya Seth:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angel and Demon, Gospel and Fairy-story
> 
> 
> Introduction: Many months ago I started out by audaciously proclaiming Tom Bombadil was uniquely associated to an abstract concept. That being a role which allegorized the ‘audience’ …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> priyasethtolkienfan.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which she demonstrates conclusively that Tom is no other than the Archangel Michael.
> View attachment 13520
> You are, aren't you?




She would be wrong too.

As that would imply Tom is an Ainur, which Tolkien says he is categorically *NOT!*

Go get a Copy of _*The Adventures of Tom Bombadil*_, Bede’s _*The Ecclesiatical History of the Anglo-Saxons/England(Engelondë)*_, Shippey’s _*The Road to Middle-earth*_, and then the Bibliographic Sources mentioned there, along with Joseph Campbell’s _*The Masks of God*_*, Vols 1 - 4*_, and _*The Hero with a Thousand Faces*, and then look for the references to how Tolkien’s comment on Tom in _*Letters*_ are connected to this.

Tolkien doesn’t come-right-out and say “Tom Bombadil is X, Y, Z, and he originated in A, B, C.” But the “X, Y, and Z,” and “A, B, and C” are mentioned in one way or the other, which Shippey and Campbell give an explicit term for, with Campbell providing the Archetypical Name (You will find similar beings in Ask and Embla, Meshia and Meshiane, the Diné Bahane’ turning First Man and First Woman into Human Beings, and the more familiar _Adam and Eve. _Tom isn’t the same as these, save the Navaho Diné Bahane’, in that he isn’t a _Human_, which is a Child of Ilúvatar. But he is the same as these in being “First,” and all the duties that fall upon _The First_ Archetypes).

The Technical term in Myth Studies is a _Protoplast_. Tolkien wouldn’t have been able to use that term because he was deceased when it was codified. But he refers to Tom as being what eventually became defined AS a _Protoplast_, in Tom’s case being two of them, given he is not just an _Extraterrestrial_ to Middle-earth (in that he did not originate WITHIN Middle-earth), but he is an ExtraCosmological Being, as well, originating in a different Universe as well, but transplanted into Middle-earth to fulfill a Mythological Role of the Universe attempting to Comprehend itself (as what the “Spirit of the (Vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire Countryside” is doing in any Myth where such Spirits reside).

Knowing _*What*_ Tom Bombadil requires people to pay attention to things beyond the tendency of Christians to Allegorizing characters, and to things beyond the Primary Sources.

MB


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

I do have all of those books.




Matthew Bailey said:


> She would be wrong too.


Yet she's just as confident in her conclusions as you appear to be.


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I do have all of those books.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet she's just as confident in her conclusions as you appear to be.



“Confidence” has nothing to do with it.

Many people are Confident of things that are false, illusory, or even dangerous lies.

I haven’t seen anything in her claims that isn’t already contradicted by Tolkien himself, especially his comments in _*Letters *_and *The Nature of Middle-earth*_._

There is a fun concept in Epistemology, the Sciences and the Philosophy of Science that most Lay People struggle mightily with (especially those of a particular religious bent) called “Falsification.”

Her claim of Tom as the Archangel Michael is Falsified by many, many, many comments of Tolkiens. Principally that Tom isn’t an Ainur, which he would have to be in order to be Michael.

It won’t matter how Confident she is of her claim. Someone who firmly believes 1 + 1 = Horse is delusional. Not _confident._ Her claim isn’t too far off there.

There isn’t anything in Tolkien’s works that Falsifies the claims I am making, because they are *not my claims. 

They are the claims of Tolkien and of Tom Shippey*.

They just don’t make them in terms that I already described.

I have just put a term to their description of Tom that originates in Myth Studies and Comparative Religion.
Sort of like how someone describing a device that propels a payload via expanding gasses from the combustion of a propellant might not know the words “Rocket” or “Gun,” but someone who does know those words, and hears the explanation says “Oh! You mean a Gun or Rocket!”
You need Evidence to show that his words do not fit the device described.





> Doug Hofstatter says, in _*The Nature of Middle-earth*_ regarding Tolkien’s Catholic Faith being the *Foundations* of Middle-earth:
> a statement that has puzzled many critics, because both The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien’s wider legendarium are all but devoid of references to any religious cultus (let alone a Catholic system of rites and worship). As I hope the texts presented here will show, the key word in Tolkien’s statement, often ignored as simply emphatic, is fundamentally: that is, in its foundations, in its essential nature.




The woman claiming him to be the Archangel Michael is one in a long line of religious cranks and fanatics looking for _*signs*_ in everything that validates their “Faith.”

Rather like the Texas Sharpshooter who draws bullseyes around the holes in the side of the Barn, they go looking for things to support a pre-existing conclusion, rather than looking at what exists and saying “What do these things say?”




> And Tolkien saying:
> 
> _*The Letters of JRRT*_; #144 to Naomi Mitchison, p. 178:
> Tom Bombadil is not an important person – to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a ‘comment’. I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in the Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely.
> 
> ibid:
> Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron.
> 
> 
> _*The Letters of JRRT*_; #153 to Michael Hastings, pp. 192 – 194
> As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point. (Again the words used are by Goldberry and Tom not me as a commentator). You rather remind me of a Protestant relation who to me objected to the (modern) Catholic habit of calling priests Father, because the name father belonged only to the First Person, citing last Sunday’s Epistle – inappositely since that says ex quo. Lots of other characters are called Master; and if ‘in time’ Tom was primeval he was Eldest in Time. But Goldberry and Tom are referring to the mystery of names. See and ponder Tom’s words in Vol. I p. 142.2. You may be able to conceive of your unique relation to the Creator without a name – can you: for in such a relation pronouns become proper nouns? But as soon as you are in a world of other finites with a similar, if each unique and different, relation to Prime Being, who are you? Frodo has asked not ‘what is Tom Bombadil’ but ‘Who is he’. We and he no doubt often laxly confuse the questions. Goldberry gives what I think is the correct answer. We need not go into the sublimities of ‘I am that am’ – which is quite different from he is.fn32 She adds as a concession a statement of part of the ‘what’. He is master in a peculiar way: he has no fear, and no desire of possession or domination at all. He merely knows and understands about such things as concern him in his natural little realm. He hardly even judges, and as far as can be seen makes no effort to reform or remove even the Willow.
> 
> I don’t think Tom needs philosophizing about, and is not improved by it. But many have found him an odd or indeed discordant ingredient. In historical fact I put him in because I had already ‘invented’ him independently (he first appeared in the Oxford Magazine)3 and wanted an ‘adventure’ on the way. But I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out. I do not mean him to be an allegory – or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name – but ‘allegory’ is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an ‘allegory’, or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are ‘other’ and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with ‘doing’ anything with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture. Even the Elves hardly show this: they are primarily artists. Also T.B. exhibits another point in his attitude to the Ring, and its failure to affect him. You must concentrate on some part, probably relatively small, of the World (Universe), whether to tell a tale, however long, or to learn anything however fundamental – and therefore much will from that ‘point of view’ be left out, distorted on the circumference, or seem a discordant oddity. The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion – but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that part of the Universe.



Tolkien wouldn’t refer to the Archangel Gabriel as “not an important person” (whether you want to quibble over whether Michael is a “Person” or not). It is the _*“Importance”*_ of the character that is salient, with Archangel Gabriel being, in Christian Theology, one of the most important things in existence.

Tolkien would also not refer to the Archangel Michael as an “Invention.” That would be blasphemous, and Tolkien took those sorts of things with the Deadly Seriousness of a person who believes them to be literally true.

How does the Archangel Michael “not even survive.”

Tolkien was zealous about the language he used. He would not be so casual nor dismissive of the Archangel Gabriel “Not even surviving. How does the Archangel Michael “Have nothing left?”

Archangels are not so dependent upon existence as to be that ephemeral.

The last quote seals the doom of her “interpretation.” *Falsifying it!*

If I had a searchable copy of _*The Road to Middle-earth*_, I could quote the entire Chapter on Tom Bombadil, where Tom Shippey cites other works regarding Tom and describes them such that they fit with the definition I gave of a “Protoplast” in the same manner that the analogy I gave above works. It is the word that was created to describe a thing or things that previously didn’t have a term for them.

But Tolkien’s description here fits that as well.

She also makes the mistake of thinking Tom has some power over the Ring, rather than that to him it is just a lump of Metal, and not something he must “overpower.”

“Power” as I keep saying, doesn’t work that way in Middle-earth.

That passage alone is one of the several where you can exclude Tom Bombadil from “Being” *anything BUT *“Tom Bombadil.” That is who he is (but, as Tolkien points-out, not *WHAT* he is).

If he were the Archangel Michael, Tolkien would not have minced words about the “He is,” and the distinction between “Who is he?” and “What is he?”

That first question‘s answer would not be “He is,” but “The Archangel Michael,” who is also not a “Spirit who desires real knowledge of the natural world.”

And the Answer to “What is” would be “An Ainur or Archangel: a Valar.”


MB

Edit: Corrected punctuation.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Matthew Bailey said:


> “Confidence” has nothing to do with it


You seem to have missed my point, but no matter-- you've shown things in a new light, and indeed made a stimulating contribution. 

If you care to make a fuller explication of the subject, it would be most welcome, but I'd suggest creating a separate thread for it in this forum:









Annals of the Eldanyárë


Discussions and activities aimed at understanding the depth of Tolkien's works, and their relationship to other mythologies, theologies, history, and other literary works.




www.thetolkienforum.com


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> You seem to have missed my point, but no matter-- you've shown things in a new light, and indeed made a stimulating contribution.
> 
> If you care to make a fuller explication of the subject, it would be most welcome, but I'd suggest creating a separate thread for it in this forum:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annals of the Eldanyárë
> 
> 
> Discussions and activities aimed at understanding the depth of Tolkien's works, and their relationship to other mythologies, theologies, history, and other literary works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thetolkienforum.com



What was your point about “Confidence,” then?

How does either my “Confidence,” or hers, have anything to do with this?

MB

Edit:

And in going back through her claims:

Wow…. She is indeed _Convinced_ that she is categorically correct and everyone else just “cannot see the _Truth©™®._”

Although her determination is arrived at by a most _*Unsound means*_, that… Just… wow…

There is a thing in the Sciences called a “Heuristic.” This is a _Rule-of-Thumb_ that is helpful for saving time in energy in a field that is deeply complex and challenging.

One of these Heuristics is:

_Certain things have proved through History to have been wrong so often that it is easier to just ignore all future examples of them, and IFF¹ one of these ”things” proves to be ”correct” at some point, then it will be examined by those whose job it is to monitor the untrustworthy for such things, and be then passed to people who might be interested._

She fits into more than one such category of things that the Sciences tend to dismiss out-of-hand based upon those Heuristics. 

She is writing a Sermon, not an analysis of Tolkien.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

As I said, it's of no consequence. 

Please consider my suggestion for a thread.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda

Here. At last, I have arrived.

So, in continuation:

I believe that the Balrog did have wings, but could not fly.

I think it is a bit farfetched to believe that Balrogs can fly, especially because that would not make much sense for the Balrog that was defeated by Gandalf by falling from the peak of Zirakzigil. It just would not make any sense.

But in the book it is noted the following:


> "The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and it's wings were spread from wall to wall...."


Leading me to believe that the Balrog indeed *did *have wings. This is an age-old topic, (I know.) So I thought it would be nice to get more involved.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

As I seriously doubt you've had time to read through entire thread (😄), I will, to address your specific point, refer you to my post from the previous page:

Post in thread 'Wings or No?' https://www.thetolkienforum.com/threads/wings-or-no.230/post-541725


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> As I seriously doubt you've had time to read through entire thread (😄), I will, to address your specific point, refer you to my post from the previous page:
> 
> Post in thread 'Wings or No?' https://www.thetolkienforum.com/threads/wings-or-no.230/post-541725


Good points made-- and yet I remain with my thought. They did have wings-- yet I don't see how they could have flown.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

By flapping them? 😃


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> Here. At last, I have arrived.
> 
> So, in continuation:
> 
> I believe that the Balrog did have wings, but could not fly.
> 
> I think it is a bit farfetched to believe that Balrogs can fly, especially because that would not make much sense for the Balrog that was defeated by Gandalf by falling from the peak of Zirakzigil. It just would not make any sense.
> 
> But in the book it is noted the following:
> 
> Leading me to believe that the Balrog indeed *did *have wings. This is an age-old topic, (I know.) So I thought it would be nice to get more involved.


My sister is an Ornithologist.

She leads the San Diego Zoo’s Keauhou and Maui Bird Sanctuaries and the Pacific Basin Conservatory. Previously she was The Curator at the Houston Zoo.

She also works with small flying and gliding mammals and gliding reptiles.

Birds die *ALL THE TIME *from simply “falling out of a tree,” “off a rock,” or “from the side of a building.”

That is especially true of birds that have been beaten to a pulp by another bird or animal, yet “escaped” only to “Fall off” something that did not allow them to transition to “flight.”

ALL flying things require a _*Transitory Phase*_ between _non-Flight_ and _Flight_.

The soaring birds, for example (Albatros, Mollymawks, Boobies, Goonies — ALL Goonies, for that matter — many Gulls, some Vultures and Buzzards — which are *not* the same things — Loggers, some Swifts, some Swallows, and the long-legged flying birds like Storks, Cranes, Egrets, etc) require a _*HUUUUGE *_amount of time to get airborne, which for the worst example of this, the_ Antipodean _and _Great Pacific Albatross _sometimes need a “Runway” of nearly a mile to get airborne. 

But not all birds require that kind of “Transitory Phase” between sedentary and Flight.

Some need to have a specifically large area around them or their wings will be unable to produce the Thrust to generate the lift to get them off the ground.

The infamous _Usama Bin Laden_ raid that killed him had a Stealth-Helicopter that landed in the back-yard of his house. South Asian Houses in the Muslim regions ALWAYS are surrounded by a large wall, to allow the women to go outside without Hijab, Niqb, or Burqah. 

But the helicopter needs a rather large “Thrust“ (Collective) to get off the ground, *especially so* when it is greatly altered, as these helicopters were to produce a minimal sound with their rotors (the “thop-thop-tho—thop” sound you tend to hear in a helicopter). But the walls caused the collective increase to blow back over the tops of the rotor, preventing the thrust from getting the helicopter off the ground.

MANY flighted animals are *exactly like this*. If they are oriented the wrong way (Bats, particularly), or if the space they are in does not contain room for _*BOTH PINIONS *_to be *FULLY EXTENDED.*

The Bird or other Flighted Animal goes “splat” if over hard ground, or otherwise falls to greater injury or death.

Remember that the Balrog on Ziram-Zigil was DEEPLY WOUNDED.

And the dip in the lake could well have ruined his wing’s, that or Glamdring. Bats, for instance… Any tear or cut in a wing is typically fatal, as they cannot fly with anything larger than a couple of mms in cut/tear of a webbing in their wings.

And, IFF by some strange notion, the Balrogs were to have feathered wings… Those don’t mix well with fire, and are just as easily “clipped” as a bat’s wings (“Clipping” is cutting off the last 2” to 6” of the last TWO Pinion Flight Feathers. That alone is enough to keep any Bird grounded pending the re-growth of those feathers in what is a common 7-year cycle of “fledging” (replacement of the Flight Feathers on an Adult Bird).

And, as to whether the Balrog had wings.

If they wanted wings, they had them, if not, they didn’t.

As per Carl Hofstetter’s _*The Nature of Middle-earth*_ makes clear about the Hröar of the Ainur, called Fanar, a “physical body” made of different Nassër (Plural of Nassë, being “Material Stuff” or “Materials of the Universe,” as the Fëar *was ALSO made of Nassër*, of a type *differing from * the Nassër of the Hröar of the World — This has to do with a concept within Catholic Theology detailed most fully by St. Thomas Aquinas called _*Hylomorphism*_. Hylomorphism was the basis of René Descartes’ “Substance Dualism” now known as _Cartesian Dualism_, which was technically also a form of Property Dualism. But Thomist Theology had attempted to reconcile these separate dualist ideals, as the latter is almost always heretical in Catholicism… But back to the point…).

The Ainur’s Fanar was distinct from the Hröar of the Children of Eru in that they could change it as easily as you or I would change socks.

Those who were _*Fallen*_, like Melkor the Morgoth, or Sauron, The Balrogs, and likely other things like Thuringwethil, had their Fanar become a _Habit_.

Where the term “Habit” here refers to *both* the Verb form, such as “habitual collecting of spoons,” or the Noun, such as “The Nun’s/Monk’s/Priest’s Habit.”

This limited *greatly* the Ainur’s ability to alter its Fanar as those in Valinor could do. 

But given that the properties of the Ainur are an Únati (Laws of the Universe not even Eru Ilúvatar can change without breaking the Universe in the process — See the _Akallabêth_), Eru could not wholly remove that ability from them, but he _could limit it_ by making it more expensive to do outside of Valinor. 

But that limited the capabilities of the Balrogs (and Morgoth and Sauron), such that the basic “Shape” of their Fanar was “Habitual,” but they could still choose various _aspects_ of that form.

Like wings. 

A particular Balrog would have wings when it wants, and none when it doesn’t.

MB


----------



## Radaghast

Matthew Bailey said:


> My sister is an Ornithologist.
> 
> She leads the San Diego Zoo’s Keauhou and Maui Bird Sanctuaries and the Pacific Basin Conservatory. Previously she was The Curator at the Houston Zoo.
> 
> She also works with small flying and gliding mammals and gliding reptiles.
> 
> Birds die *ALL THE TIME *from simply “falling out of a tree,” “off a rock,” or “from the side of a building.”
> 
> That is especially true of birds that have been beaten to a pulp by another bird or animal, yet “escaped” only to “Fall off” something that did not allow them to transition to “flight.”
> 
> ALL flying things require a _*Transitory Phase*_ between _non-Flight_ and _Flight_.
> 
> The soaring birds, for example (Albatros, Mollymawks, Boobies, Goonies — ALL Goonies, for that matter — many Gulls, some Vultures and Buzzards — which are *not* the same things — Loggers, some Swifts, some Swallows, and the long-legged flying birds like Storks, Cranes, Egrets, etc) require a _*HUUUUGE *_amount of time to get airborne, which for the worst example of this, the_ Antipodean _and _Great Pacific Albatross _sometimes need a “Runway” of nearly a mile to get airborne.
> 
> But not all birds require that kind of “Transitory Phase” between sedentary and Flight.
> 
> Some need to have a specifically large area around them or their wings will be unable to produce the Thrust to generate the lift to get them off the ground.
> 
> The infamous _Usama Bin Laden_ raid that killed him had a Stealth-Helicopter that landed in the back-yard of his house. South Asian Houses in the Muslim regions ALWAYS are surrounded by a large wall, to allow the women to go outside without Hijab, Niqb, or Burqah.
> 
> But the helicopter needs a rather large “Thrust“ (Collective) to get off the ground, *especially so* when it is greatly altered, as these helicopters were to produce a minimal sound with their rotors (the “thop-thop-tho—thop” sound you tend to hear in a helicopter). But the walls caused the collective increase to blow back over the tops of the rotor, preventing the thrust from getting the helicopter off the ground.
> 
> MANY flighted animals are *exactly like this*. If they are oriented the wrong way (Bats, particularly), or if the space they are in does not contain room for _*BOTH PINIONS *_to be *FULLY EXTENDED.*
> 
> The Bird or other Flighted Animal goes “splat” if over hard ground, or otherwise falls to greater injury or death.
> 
> Remember that the Balrog on Ziram-Zigil was DEEPLY WOUNDED.
> 
> And the dip in the lake could well have ruined his wing’s, that or Glamdring. Bats, for instance… Any tear or cut in a wing is typically fatal, as they cannot fly with anything larger than a couple of mms in cut/tear of a webbing in their wings.
> 
> And, IFF by some strange notion, the Balrogs were to have feathered wings… Those don’t mix well with fire, and are just as easily “clipped” as a bat’s wings (“Clipping” is cutting off the last 2” to 6” of the last TWO Pinion Flight Feathers. That alone is enough to keep any Bird grounded pending the re-growth of those feathers in what is a common 7-year cycle of “fledging” (replacement of the Flight Feathers on an Adult Bird).
> 
> And, as to whether the Balrog had wings.
> 
> If they wanted wings, they had them, if not, they didn’t.
> 
> As per Carl Hofstetter’s _*The Nature of Middle-earth*_ makes clear about the Hröar of the Ainur, called Fanar, a “physical body” made of different Nassër (Plural of Nassë, being “Material Stuff” or “Materials of the Universe,” as the Fëar *was ALSO made of Nassër*, of a type *differing from * the Nassër of the Hröar of the World — This has to do with a concept within Catholic Theology detailed most fully by St. Thomas Aquinas called _*Hylomorphism*_. Hylomorphism was the basis of René Descartes’ “Substance Dualism” now known as _Cartesian Dualism_, which was technically also a form of Property Dualism. But Thomist Theology had attempted to reconcile these separate dualist ideals, as the latter is almost always heretical in Catholicism… But back to the point…).
> 
> The Ainur’s Fanar was distinct from the Hröar of the Children of Eru in that they could change it as easily as you or I would change socks.
> 
> Those who were _*Fallen*_, like Melkor the Morgoth, or Sauron, The Balrogs, and likely other things like Thuringwethil, had their Fanar become a _Habit_.
> 
> Where the term “Habit” here refers to *both* the Verb form, such as “habitual collecting of spoons,” or the Noun, such as “The Nun’s/Monk’s/Priest’s Habit.”
> 
> This limited *greatly* the Ainur’s ability to alter its Fanar as those in Valinor could do.
> 
> But given that the properties of the Ainur are an Únati (Laws of the Universe not even Eru Ilúvatar can change without breaking the Universe in the process — See the _Akallabêth_), Eru could not wholly remove that ability from them, but he _could limit it_ by making it more expensive to do outside of Valinor.
> 
> But that limited the capabilities of the Balrogs (and Morgoth and Sauron), such that the basic “Shape” of their Fanar was “Habitual,” but they could still choose various _aspects_ of that form.
> 
> Like wings.
> 
> A particular Balrog would have wings when it wants, and none when it doesn’t.
> 
> MB


That seems like an overlong explanation as to why the Balrog doesn't fly at the bridge with no contextual evidence to back it up. Are you suggesting Balrogs need a running start to get airborne? Seems specious to me, at best. Do you honestly think Tolkien would even consider this about birds? Do you believe he was thinking of albatrosses when he wrote about Balrogs? He was no ornithologist or zoologist. Bird wings are upper limbs, analogous to our arms. It's not just their upper limbs that enable flight. Their entire bodies are adapted for this purpose. The Balrog already had arms which are not the equivalent of bird wings and they are not shaped like birds.







Balrogs are never described as flying creatures in any source that I can find or as having wings. In battles, seems like flight could be an extreme advantage.

Honestly, I don't even know why this is a controversy. If they have wings, they are wings of _shadow_. At the bridge, they spread "from wall to wall", covering the entire vast cavern in darkness, except for tiny old Gandalf and his gleaming sword. In the movies they have no useful function whatever; they're just skeletal appendages with nothing between the pinions except black smoke.


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Radaghast said:


> That seems like an overlong explanation as to why the Balrog doesn't fly at the bridge with no contextual evidence to back it up. Are you suggesting Balrogs need a running start to get airborne? Seems specious to me, at best.





> Did you miss the part where I pointed-out that the Great Pacific and Antipodean Albatross are only the most extreme version of the Transitory-phase to flight?




Did you miss the part where I pointed-ot that the Greater Pacific and Antipodean Albatross are *only *the *most extreme examples of the Transitory-Phase *in flying animals, specifically birds, and that not all flying animals, specifically birds, have anything like that, *but still require a Transitory-Phase.

ALL FLYING THINGS REQUIRE A TRANSITORY-PHASE/TRANSITION-PHASE BETWEEN SEDENTARY AND FLIGHT.*

Notice the Sentence that you seem to have skipped right over concerning that very thing:



> *I said:*
> But not all birds require that kind (as the larger Soaring Birds like the Albatross) of Transitory Phase between Sedentary and Flight.



Or that it wasn’t the Bridge I was referencing, but I also addressed how it would be even less likely to have been able to gain transition to flight, with the examples of birds in confined spaces being unable to fly at all due to how thrust is generated for that transition, and their bodies *MUST* be oriented in the proper direction.



Radaghast said:


> Do you honestlhy think Tolkien would even consider this about birds? Do you believe he was thinking of albatrosses when he wrote about Balrogs? He was no zoologist. Bird wings are upper limbs, analogous to our arms. It's not just their upper limbs that enable flight. Their entire bodies are adapted for this purpose. The Balrog already had arms which are not the equivalent of bird wings and they are not shaped like birds.



I gave a list of _*many*_ different birds with different forms of Transition, including that of the Bat, which has an exceptionally difficult time getting airborne from the ground.

Their “Transitory Phase” tends to require them to be able to either leap off something, or to already be hanging upside-down.

As to whether Tolkien “considered” this… That, as he says in his own words, is irrelevant.

As he was trying to address the Foundational Metaphysics of the world, and not fiddle with pointless minutia like that, when it should be something that “Falls-Out of the Metaphysics,” the same way that the Physics of Our Universe is supposed to be self-evident from the Metaphysical Foundations (but Metaphysics being what it is… It isn’t likely to ever satisfy anyone in *THIS UNIVERSE*.







Radaghast said:


> Balrogs are never described as flying creatures in any source that I can find or as having wings. In battles, seems like flight could be an extreme advantage.



I didn’t claim they could fly. All I said was that falling off something isn’t sufficient (You *do* know the distinctions between *necessary* and *sufficient Conditions, Properties, etc.*, do you not?) to allow it to transition to flight *if It could fly*.

And the ambiguity as to the existence of Wings is another thing that is irrelevant. Going back to the *Foundational Metaphysical and Theological Properties* of Middle-earth, specifically the Hylomorphism of Eä, and that the Hröar of Ainur *is not the same as the other Mirröanwe of Arda* being called a _*Fana/Fanar*_, which is composed of different *Nassë/Nassër* (Material Substances), allows the Ainur to change their Fanar as we would change socks.

Thus the issue of “Do Balrogs have wings” is about as relevant as:

”Are you wearing a pair of argyle socks?”

You are if you want to be wearing Argyle Socks, and you don’t want to be wearing Argyle Socks, you aren’t.


MB






Radaghast said:


> Honestly, I don't even know why this is a controversy. If they have wings, they are wings of _shadow_. At the bridge, they spread "from wall to wall", covering the entire vast cavern in darkness, except for tiny old Gandalf and his gleaming sword.



I suppose the Manichaean Hylomorphism of “Shadow” *is *one Nassë that the Balrogs could use to form wings for their Fanar.

MB


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda

Matthew Bailey said:


> Did you miss the part where I pointed-ot that the Greater Pacific and Antipodean Albatross are *only *the *most extreme examples of the Transitory-Phase *in flying animals, specifically birds, and that not all flying animals, specifically birds, have anything like that, *but still require a Transitory-Phase.
> 
> ALL FLYING THINGS REQUIRE A TRANSITORY-PHASE/TRANSITION-PHASE BETWEEN SEDENTARY AND FLIGHT.*
> 
> Notice the Sentence that you seem to have skipped right over concerning that very thing:
> 
> 
> 
> Or that it wasn’t the Bridge I was referencing, but I also addressed how it would be even less likely to have been able to gain transition to flight, with the examples of birds in confined spaces being unable to fly at all due to how thrust is generated for that transition, and their bodies *MUST* be oriented in the proper direction.
> 
> 
> 
> I gave a list of _*many*_ different birds with different forms of Transition, including that of the Bat, which has an exceptionally difficult time getting airborne from the ground.
> 
> Their “Transitory Phase” tends to require them to be able to either leap off something, or to already be hanging upside-down.
> 
> As to whether Tolkien “considered” this… That, as he says in his own words, is irrelevant.
> 
> As he was trying to address the Foundational Metaphysics of the world, and not fiddle with pointless minutia like that, when it should be something that “Falls-Out of the Metaphysics,” the same way that the Physics of Our Universe is supposed to be self-evident from the Metaphysical Foundations (but Metaphysics being what it is… It isn’t likely to ever satisfy anyone in *THIS UNIVERSE*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn’t claim they could fly. All I said was that falling off something isn’t sufficient (You *do* know the distinctions between *necessary* and *sufficient Conditions, Properties, etc.*, do you not?) to allow it to transition to flight *if It could fly*.
> 
> And the ambiguity as to the existence of Wings is another thing that is irrelevant. Going back to the *Foundational Metaphysical and Theological Properties* of Middle-earth, specifically the Hylomorphism of Eä, and that the Hröar of Ainur *is not the same as the other Mirröanwe of Arda* being called a _*Fana/Fanar*_, which is composed of different *Nassë/Nassër* (Material Substances), allows the Ainur to change their Fanar as we would change socks.
> 
> Thus the issue of “Do Balrogs have wings” is about as relevant as:
> 
> ”Are you wearing a pair of argyle socks?”
> 
> You are if you want to be wearing Argyle Socks, and you don’t want to be wearing Argyle Socks, you aren’t.
> 
> 
> MB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the Manichaean Hylomorphism of “Shadow” *is *one Nassë that the Balrogs could use to form wings for their Fanar.
> 
> MB


Appreciate all the thought put into this post. 

Very well done.


----------



## Radaghast

> Notice the Sentence that you seem to have skipped right over concerning that very thing:





> *I said:*​But not all birds require that kind (as the larger Soaring Birds like the Albatross) of Transitory Phase between Sedentary and Flight.​


Not sure what my missing this sentence has to do with anything.



> Or that it wasn’t the Bridge I was referencing, but I also addressed how it would be even less likely to have been able to gain transition to flight, with the examples of birds in confined spaces being unable to fly at all due to how thrust is generated for that transition, and their bodies *MUST* be oriented in the proper direction.


Yes. Because it can't fly. Again, Balrogs are never shown to be able to fly in other sources, nor even of having wings for that matter (though I'm open to any correction on this). And, again, if Tolkien wanted Balrogs to fly, he would probably not have considered whether or not they would need a running start.

In LoR, Tolkien was mostly being poetic and seems to contain the first detailed description of their power over shadow. Its wings, if you can call them that, are immaterial (as is the question of whether they have them or not). If they can't fly, wings are meaningless. Note the initial mention of wings: "His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings." It is first described as a dark form wreathed in shadow, which then reaches out _like_ wings. Once this is established, Tolkien refers to them _as_ wings for, I expect, expediency.


----------



## Goldilocks Gamgee

There are two quotes describing the Balrog's wings:
a. "His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings."
b. " ... it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall..."

If the second quote was our only time of describing the Balrog's wings, then the question would be closed. It states that the Balrog has wings. But the first quote is different. It describes the wings as being a shadow of the creature. Then, it logically follows that when the Balrog "drew himself up to a great height" his 'wings' became bigger, because a bigger object casts a bigger shadow.

Also, just came across this. Kind of fits the topic of this thread.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Well, I _want _there to be wings, but we have to accept that, as in so many cases, Tolkien leaves it deliberately ambiguous. 

That doesn't mean we can't keep talking about it. 😀


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Well, I _want _there to be wings, but we have to accept that, as in so many cases, Tolkien leaves it deliberately ambiguous.
> 
> That doesn't mean we can't keep talking about it. 😀


'Tis true. We will *definitely *continue to talk about it.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Well, I _want _there to be wings, but we have to accept that, as in so many cases, Tolkien leaves it deliberately ambiguous.
> 
> That doesn't mean we can't keep talking about it. 😀


It's simple really, just agree they have wings and we don't need 43 pages


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Never gonna happen. 😄


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda

Erestor Arcamen said:


> It's simple really, just agree they have wings and we don't need 43 pages


Ah, yes. But this is one of those fun 'arguments' where no one changes opinion, no one says their wrong, and no one finds any true proof to support their stance. In fact, the only real agreement made, is that there Tolkien was ambiguous about it. Each side has 'evidence' to back their point up, but there really is nothing that telling.

Thus, you get 43 pages of an argument that is timeless, and no matter what you are doing, how little time you have, the moment you see it, you cannot help but respond.

I mean, in truth: Maiar are spirits-- so they could take the form of wings or not at different times... It is very vague.


----------



## d4rk3lf

The way I see it... Tolkien doesn't mean the wings (that's why he clearly state "LIKE the wings")....
He always use "Like the".. like many good writers... example.. Fingolfin VS Morgoth... Fingolfin was like a tiny tree, under the heavy storm... 

He describe shadow and terror, imho... shadow was so enormous (and by shadow, he might meant both something like physical shadow (or dark smoke) , but also terror... 
And he describes it *from the perspective of fellowship. *

So, if you're in the fellowship, you just feel how Balrog grows, and basically covers you with his "wings", meaning, it covers all fellowship with terror and darkness... it rises to enormous size... it might be that only fear in you that rises... it might be Balrog... physically.. it might be both... 
That's why Tolkien is genius.... we can argue here for years if he meant that they had wings or not, but the feel of terror that Tolkien describing, is pretty much same to all of us... we feel what he wanted to say.. we interpret it each in our own way... 

And yeah, I totally understand why Tolkien decide that Balrog stays very silent. Silent is sometimes much more terrorizing then most extreme horror sound. 
But I also understand why in the movie they made him with sound and everything... and even I am for years very bitter, how pathetically they did some scenes in the movie, that is definitely not the Balrog scene. For me, that is one of the best scene in all 3 movies... great job they did, I think.... 
Even "Gandalf the weak" from the movie looked sort of Ok in that scene (still not perfect... but... whatever)


----------



## Ent

Beorn said:


> Did Balrogs have Wings? What do you think, rather than what you evidence thinks....I don't want people to argue, just whether they have wings...



It's always interesting to see how things differ from the statement and intent of an original post to what actually happens.
Beorn the beloved asks a "yes or no" question, specifically excluding 'research' from being considered, and declares he doesn,t want argument.
43 pages later, we see the result. 😃

If this were a test on a 'pass/fail' basis, most all have failed.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Well-aged Enting said:


> 43 pages later,


And 21 years. 😄


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

To quote @Barliman quoting Tolkien,



> "The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and *it's wings* were spread from wall to wall...."


Not "its like-wings", its wings


----------



## d4rk3lf

Well-aged Enting said:


> If this were a test on a 'pass/fail' basis, most all have failed.


But what if I am unsure?  
Some questions you can't answer just yes or no. 
(don't force me to give you an example  ) 

Wings are not only foe flying.. they could caress... or hit you in the face...
They could be physical or psychological on the viewer...

Either way, I think that Beorn the beloved , wanted to avoid pointless arguing (and fight), but I guess he wouldn'+t mind, of someone just wishes to elaborate his thoughts.


----------



## Ent

d4rk3lf said:


> But what if I am unsure?
> Some questions you can't answer just yes or no.
> (don't force me to give you an example  )
> 
> Wings are not only foe flying.. they could caress... or hit you in the face...
> They could be physical or psychological on the viewer...
> 
> Either way, I think that Beorn the beloved , wanted to avoid pointless arguing (and fight), but I guess he wouldn'+t mind, of someone just wishes to elaborate his thoughts.



Well since you asked: if a 'yes or no' question is asked, especially if specifically requested to exclude 'other stuff', and one is unsure, then one simply does not respond.

Let me give you an example.

Illuvatar steps forth and talks to all the Ainur.
He says "I'm showing you this Theme. I will that you adorn it... if YOU will." In other words, they know his primary will... BUT in his will they are also given their own CHOICE to refrain from such adornment without penalty.

However they are NOT given authority to contend.
Melkor chooses a third, unauthorized path, rather than one of his TWO (not just one) options.

He pays a great price, as do many others, as a result.

43 pages is simply the 'great price' being paid, of choosing an option other than the ones originally authorized. (fun though it may be.)

Fortunately, the results of this disobedience are far less than that which Melkor (and so many others) ultimately had to pay.


----------



## Radaghast

Erestor Arcamen said:


> To quote @Barliman quoting Tolkien,
> 
> 
> Not it's "like-wings", it's wings


"Its" 😁

Anyway, this issue is not at all ambiguous to me. To sum:

Balrogs are not described as having wings in any other writing: _The Silmarillion_, _The Book of Lost Tale_s, _The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien_, etc.
They are also never said to be able to fly. Flight is the most common ability people associate with wings, yet Balrogs can't, so the most logical conclusion is that the "wings" of Durin's Bane are not literal appendages, and certainly not flying ones.
When the Balrog first approaches the bridge it is not described as having wings. The shadow surrounding it then reaches out "like two vast wings". These "wings" then grow bigger filling the entire cavern; they are "wings" of shadow. Tolkien is obviously being colorful here, and/or economical. To say something like, "the shadow that resembled wings spread from wall to wall" would be clunky.


----------



## d4rk3lf

Well-aged Enting said:


> Well since you asked: if a 'yes or no' question is asked, especially if specifically requested to exclude 'other stuff', and one is unsure, then one simply does not respond.


LOL. 
Interesting answer...

Ok... I am not sure if this Beorn (the beloved) would actually mind anyone stating it's opinion, and expanding it a little bit on more then yes or no (which I doubt).
*But if he do, *I promise, I'll apologize here publicly for ruining his thread. 

Personally, I don't care very much if Balrog have wings or not (or much even less if dwarfs women had beards), because there's so much more important (and yet) unanswered questions about Tolkien world, that I'd like to know.

But I ask mighty Eru to forgive my little post on if I think Balrogs have the wings or not. 
If Eru thinks it's unforgivable, then who am I to judge? 
Bring me tied to the fire, and let's finish the job.


----------



## Ent

Radaghast said:


> "Its" 😁



It's is correct.
The full meaning is "Not it is "like wings". It is wings."

So both "it's" are properly apostrophe'd as originally written.

It's only "its" when it's being referred to in the sense of a possessive... like "This is an apple. Its color is red."

Any time we contract "it is" we apostrophe.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda

Well-aged Enting said:


> Well since you asked: if a 'yes or no' question is asked, especially if specifically requested to exclude 'other stuff', and one is unsure, then one simply does not respond.
> 
> Let me give you an example.
> 
> Illuvatar steps forth and talks to all the Ainur.
> He says "I'm showing you this Theme. I will that you adorn it... if YOU will." In other words, they know his primary will... BUT in his will they are also given their own CHOICE to refrain from such adornment without penalty.
> 
> However they are NOT given authority to contend.
> Melkor chooses a third, unauthorized path, rather than one of his TWO (not just one) options.
> 
> He pays a great price, as do many others, as a result.
> 
> 43 pages is simply the 'great price' being paid, of choosing an option other than the ones originally authorized. (fun though it may be.)
> 
> Fortunately, the results of this disobedience are far less than that which Melkor (and so many others) ultimately had to pay.


Valid points.

It is always astounding and surprisingly revealing how far things can stray from their first intended purpose.

This does not make any add-ons, negative, however, but just an addition that was not asked for, but made for a very exciting and often riveting discussion.

I don't view these extra explanations as a negative result, and I would assume that Beorn(The Beloved) would feel the same. 

Illuvatar gladly grant mercy on us all, but since Mandos has not showed up, nor anyone to reprimand us, I think we shall be fine.


----------



## Ent

d4rk3lf said:


> LOL.
> Interesting answer...
> 
> Ok... I am not sure if this Beorn (the beloved) would actually mind anyone stating it's opinion, and expanding it a little bit on more then yes or no (which I doubt).
> *But if he do, *I promise, I'll apologize here publicly for ruining his thread.
> 
> Personally, I don't care very much if Balrog have wings or not (or much even less if dwarfs women had beards), because there's so much more important (and yet) unanswered questions about Tolkien world, that I'd like to know.
> 
> But I ask mighty Eru to forgive my little post on if I think Balrogs have the wings or not.
> If Eru thinks it's unforgivable, then who am I to judge?
> Bring me tied to the fire, and let's finish the job.



I'm certain Eru would forgive you on the basis of your bereavement, abasement and humility here. 😁


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

Well-aged Enting said:


> It's is correct.
> The full meaning is "Not it is "like wings". It is wings."
> 
> So both "it's" are properly apostrophe'd as originally written.
> 
> It's only "its" when it's being referred to in the sense of a possessive... like "This is an apple. Its color is red."
> 
> Any time we contract "it is" we apostrophe.


I had been posting from my phone and it did indeed autocorrect to it's when my original intent was for its


----------



## d4rk3lf

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> This does not make any add-ons, negative, however, but just an addition that was not asked for, but made for a very exciting and often riveting discussion.


I've been on a various forums since 2002 year.. or something like that.. 
It's always been like that... 
Some forums are more strict with the rules.. some are not.. 

I personally like more relaxed rules (and relaxed conversations), but still, stay on the topic.. I feel it's somewhat similar here (thought I am new.. still)... 

The point I want to make is: 
I hate flame wars. 
I dislike anyone discarding anyone in the discussion (because of a passion), in the forum, or in real life. 
But I don't either like fascistic manner.. like.. you have been asked a question: answer Yes or No. 
That doesn't work for me either. 

Golden middle is the answer.. 

Sure, we will all go of-topic on threads here and there.. but we won't be THAT of topic, since we are still debating Tolkien, and not if Tomato juice is good combination with potato and cheese (and it is.. just saying  ). 

That's what I think about all that.


----------



## Ent

Erestor Arcamen said:


> It's simple really, just agree they have wings and we don't need 43 pages



But if we did this "agreeing" thing, our Chief Cellrog would lose an item from the "Great halls of Speculation".
(At least - at this Forum..! Elsewhere would be entirely another matter.)


----------



## d4rk3lf

Well-aged Enting said:


> I'm certain Eru would forgive you on the basis of your bereavement, abasement and humility here. 😁


Hehe.. thank you my friend.. 

I still feel uncomfortable, as some eagle just passed my window, and it felt like he had a thunder under his wings.


----------



## Ent

d4rk3lf said:


> I've been on a various forums since 2002 year.. or something like that..
> It's always been like that...
> Some forums are more strict with the rules.. some are not..
> 
> I personally like more relaxed rules (and relaxed conversations), but still, stay on the topic.. I feel it's somewhat similar here (thought I am new.. still)...
> 
> The point I want to make is:
> I hate flame wars.
> I dislike anyone discarding anyone in the discussion (because of a passion), in the forum, or in real life.
> But I don't either like fascistic manner.. like.. you have been asked a question: answer Yes or No.
> That doesn't work for me either.
> 
> Golden middle is the answer..
> 
> Sure, we will all go of-topic on threads here and there.. but we won't be THAT of topic, since we are still debating Tolkien, and not if Tomato juice is good combination with potato and cheese (and it is.. just saying  ).
> 
> That's what I think about all that.



I hope I have not misled you.
My post was not about 'rules' or how things should be, nor did it intend any 'concern' or 'dissatisfaction regarding whether if a yes or no question is asked, only a yes or no answer should be given - or any such other related thing. 

It was simply an observation of an interesting difference, natural to humankind, that I tossed into the midst of 43 pages (and 21 years as our Chief Cellrog adds) of fun discussing a thread topic. 

If I have offended in any way, please accpet my sincerest apologies.



Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> Valid points.
> 
> It is always astounding and surprisingly revealing how far things can stray from their first intended purpose.
> 
> This does not make any add-ons, negative, however, but just an addition that was not asked for, but made for a very exciting and often riveting discussion.
> 
> I don't view these extra explanations as a negative result, and I would assume that Beorn(The Beloved) would feel the same.
> 
> Illuvatar gladly grant mercy on us all, but since Mandos has not showed up, nor anyone to reprimand us, I think we shall be fine.



Indeed. The concept of 'negative' is nowhere in view. Only 'interesting' if not 'intriguing'.

Imagine what life would be, if indeed we were all and always 'literalists' on each and every thing..!!


----------



## d4rk3lf

Well-aged Enting said:


> I hope I have not misled you.
> My post was not about 'rules' or how things should be, nor did it intend any 'concern' or 'dissatisfaction regarding whether if a yes or no question is asked, only a yes or no answer should be given - or any such other related thing.
> 
> It was simply an observation of an interesting difference, natural to humankind, that I tossed into the midst of 43 pages (and 21 years as our Chief Cellrog adds) of fun discussing a thread topic.
> 
> If I have offended in any way, please accpet my sincerest apologies.


LOL 
No way man - relax... 

If I had any dispute with you, I'd tell you directly in my reply to you, I would not use third person to do that.. besides.. that so.. telenovela..  
Relax mate, I've been here for a few weeks, and it might be my (harsh) langwidge) that cause some misunderstanding.... 
I apologize if that is the case. 

But from what I understand, vast majority of here is very nice people, and Ireally enjoy majority of conversations here.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda

Well-aged Enting said:


> Indeed. The concept of 'negative' is nowhere in view. Only 'interesting' if not 'intriguing'.
> 
> Imagine what life would be, if indeed we were all and always 'literalists' on each and every thing..!!


I know. Only restating that which had been said.

What a miserable world indeed that would become!


----------



## Gloranthan

Necromancy, but I don't want to start a new thread on this. But based on my reading it _is_ ambiguous. It says its wings spread out, and then it says things 'like wings'. This could be interpreted _as wings_, but it could also mean that its cloak of shadow closed in about it (like an angel folding wings over its body) and that this cloak of shadows later was lifted up and out from the body, again like wings. So there's no definitive answer, no indication in his letters or other Balrog descriptions that say it had wings. Regardless of whether someone shows it with wings, or not, the wings _should look like shadow_. If the Balrog depictions with wings had stuck to this the controversy would be far less, because the people who don't want wings could say 'those are its shadows' and the ones who do could say 'those are it's shadowy wings'. Wings that _don't_ look like shadows, however, do not fit the description.


----------



## Ent

A good analysis.
Of course, Balrogs have always been one of the chief and most frequently reviewed entries in TTF's _The Great Halls of Speculation_.
They were on the 1st floor, aisle 1, only about a quarter of the way down, on the left side no less. (The former curator, inheriting the _Halls_ from the original curator, has a strong recall capability.)

Checked out regularly, the Battle regarding the Balrog raged on, proponents on either side - yet never coming to a conclusion, the focus being askew.

Though the _Halls_ have burned down subsequently, the Balrog issue (and all others the _Halls_ contained in its 10 floors, multiple aisles, and countless shelves) remain and continue to be trotted out periodically for review.

I particularly like your injunction to consider how the wings should be displayed if in fact they are displayed at all.
Every wrinkle finds its place in the Subjects considered for re-entry into the _Halls_ (should they be rebuilt) after another review has been done.


----------



## Gloranthan

This is similar to its 'great height', which some people have interpreted as meaning it's 27' tall or something. But a 'great height' could be, say, 7' tall. Based on some of Tolkien's revisions and changes to Balrogs both before and after Lord of the Rings I personally believe its size was, like Melkor, 'large, but not a giant' as I believe Tolkien said of Morgoth's Dark Lord form; I think you can get away with 12' but anything more than that is reading more into 'great height' than is probably there, and it's also hard to imagine how it could physically fight Gandalf (how could Gandalf reach past it's arms?) if it was the size of a house.
After all, if Balrogs were originally twice the height of an Elf (16' at the outside) and Tolkien downsized it later, it really can't be more than twice the height of an elf.


----------



## Ent

Gloranthan said:


> This is similar to its 'great height'


Not to mention it's particular appearance as some kind of 'horned demonic beast.' Its physical appearance was likely much more that of a 'normal human/Elven/maiar' type form though distorted. Nothing I have found supports the 'classic' appearance so unfortunately copied by illustrator after illustrator following its first appearance.


----------



## Gloranthan

Ent said:


> Not to mention it's particular appearance as some kind of 'horned demonic beast.' Its physical appearance was likely much more that of a 'normal human/Elven/maiar' type form though distorted. Nothing I have found supports the 'classic' appearance so unfortunately copied by illustrator after illustrator following its first appearance.


As I've made clear elsewhere, I always interpreted it as a dark angel - a huge (but more or less man sized) being shaped like a human male, shadowy, with long hair, wreathed in flame; and about it is a shadow which it can draw in (to hide its burning self, otherwise a very noticeable target) or push out (and probably causing fear and dread as the shadow enfolds people). He's got an Estoc of glowing red metal (a piercing spike of flame, right?) and a whip which is not _made of fire_, but is in flames.


----------



## Ent

Gloranthan said:


> As I've made clear elsewhere


Has that 'elsewhere' been here, and I've missed it? I've had my eyes on you since your arrival, but confess to having been engaged elsewhere as well.


----------



## Gloranthan

Ent said:


> Has that 'elsewhere' been here, and I've missed it? I've had my eyes on you since your arrival, but confess to having been engaged elsewhere as well.


Scattered about this post .
I don't see it as having giant horns and whatnot, though a cruelly leering face with some substantial eye teeth I can accept.


----------



## Ent

Thank you. I'll catch up with it eventually.


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Gloranthan said:


> This is similar to its 'great height', which some people have interpreted as meaning it's 27' tall or something. But a 'great height' could be, say, 7' tall. Based on some of Tolkien's revisions and changes to Balrogs both before and after Lord of the Rings I personally believe its size was, like Melkor, 'large, but not a giant' as I believe Tolkien said of Morgoth's Dark Lord form; I think you can get away with 12' but anything more than that is reading more into 'great height' than is probably there, and it's also hard to imagine how it could physically fight Gandalf (how could Gandalf reach past it's arms?) if it was the size of a house.
> After all, if Balrogs were originally twice the height of an Elf (16' at the outside) and Tolkien downsized it later, it really can't be more than twice the height of an elf.



Tolkien also tells us in *The Nature of Middle-earth*, that the Ainur were “of greater stature, but *not gigantic*_.”

And we also have how Ulmö _*appears*_ “gigantic_” to Tuor at Vinyalondë, in the same book, via _Indemmar_, or “Mind Pictures.”

This is both a part of the inherent nature of the Ainur as being made of different _“Stuff”_ (_Nessë_/_Nassë_)than the _Miröanwi_ of Arda, and thus they haven’t the Hylomorphic ‘duality‘ *of* the _Miröanwi_, instead being a _Fanar _(alt: _Fánar_) that is made of the “stuff” composing their “Real Being” (pardon my inability to find the term for this at the present).

_Indemmar_ is a form of _Ósanwe-Kenta_ (Mind-Speaking/Speech), save that it is predominantly audio-visual, appearing as an apparition to many men, but when communicated by an Ainur, the form will be imposed upon the recipient, Man or Elf.

Thus, as I have pointed-out before, the Balrogs, as Ainur, even if _habituated _(as in *both* the “_Habit_” of a repeated behavior, and the “_Habit_” of a clerical vestment) in form to a solitary ’appearance,’ that cannot be greatly varied (As when Melian had a child with Thingol. This fixed her Fanar as an unchanging Hröa until she returned to Valinor, or that Hröa died of wound or grief — Grief would allow her to abandon it, but the habituation of the Miröanwi Habit of Bearing a Child as an act of bodily Love meant that outside of Valinor she would be unable to recreate another _Fána, _and would only be able to re-create the same Hröa as she “wore” as Melian, married to Elwë/Elu Thingol_)._

The Balrogs have a similar problem, possibly worse than Melian, given that the _Habituation_ of their _Fánar_ was via acts of Hatred, Violence, and Murder. Far worse than an act of Love in condemning the Ainur’s _Being_/_Nessër_/_Nassër_ to a single form.

But they would still be able to vary that form, via the same means that they constructed the form of that Fánar to begin with. 

*AND…*

They would still be able to use _Indemmar _and _Ósanwe-Kenta _as a means to daunt and terrorize their victims. Appearing larger, more dangerous, and even having wings if they had not previously fashioned such for their _Fánar_.

I have already been over (and-over-and-over-and-over) how they would be able to have, *or not have*, Wings, as they chose. The rapidity with which they could *manifest* those wings as a part of their Physical _Fánar _would depend entirely upon the form of that _Fánar_ when they became _Habituated_/_Fixed _within it. A Balrog originally manifesting their Fánar within Eä with demonic appearing “_Wings_” would be able to manifest them with a rapidity that could have them appear instantly at need, or disappear at a similar need.

Those Balrogs who did not manifest their _Habituated Fánar_ with Wings would require some thought or effort to manifest them. Over the ages their continued manifestation of such Wings would make it easier to do (much like if you practice at painting, or sculpting it becomes easier to do those forms you have repeated most often. Eventually able to compose them upside-down and backwards when blindfolded with a rapidity that shocks many — see YouTube for examples of Painting or Sculpting of that sort).

Tolkien stridently avoided dwelling upon how the _Machinations of Evil_ were manifested in Middle-earth, Arda, or Eä as a whole. But given the focus he had upon particulars (such as that noted by others in his use of simile — Like/As/etc.. — to denote a literal phenomenon, where the “like/as/as-if/etc.” is meant to convey that this IS a thing) that he would have realized that no Two Balrogs were alike, and would likely have applied that to the Nazgûl as well (given that he mentions Khamûl as being the most resistant to water, it seems he was already far down that pathway).

As such, some might have “typical features” not found in others. But any could likely manifest such features in their _Fána_ should the need or desire arise.

MB


----------



## Gloranthan

Ainur are definitely shape-shifters, but I wonder if putting so much of their power into physical form had made them incapable of changing much, as Morgoth and Sauron later suffered from. I don't think Tolkien says that anywhere, but it seems at least possible that they were 'stuck' in form. As for making themselves _appear_ larger, well, throwing giant shadows up around yourself would definitely do that. I seem to recall that Morgoth had put some of his own power into his creatures, though whether that includes the Balrog spirits, I can't recall.


----------



## Ent

Are we saying the Balrog was Ainu? I trust not. Nor Sauron of course.
These were both of the Maiar, lesser in power and servants of the Ainur.
Though they could shapeshift we cannot compare their capabilities or ongoing abilities to any Ainu.


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Ent said:


> Not to mention it's particular appearance as some kind of 'horned demonic beast.' Its physical appearance was likely much more that of a 'normal human/Elven/maiar' type form though distorted. Nothing I have found supports the 'classic' appearance so unfortunately copied by illustrator after illustrator following its first appearance.


As far as I can tell, the “first Appearance” of a Balrog in any Media beyond Gaming Miniatures *did not have horns*.

It had a Lion‘s head, strange butterfly-bat wings in its first appearance, taking-on a different appearance in the bottom of Dúrin’s Well.

And it inspired other, more refined visualizations, few of which had “horns.”

I once owned, briefly, the Miniature Company who had the Rights to that particular depiction of the Balrog. The artwork we were given by the Director of the film (also one of its artists), had several appearances, all rather murky and without much form.

Duke Sigfried of the the company made his Der Kriegspiellers based upon some of these, but the “Licensed Line” had two versions, one with horns, one without.

The “Beast of Og” had horns, as this was the first “Balrog” to be produced at Heritage, later replaced with one that didn’t cook the molds for lunch.

Der Kriegspiellers Fantastiques

Licensed Lord of the Rings Line

But *THE BALROGS* to have were those by Bryan Ansell and Tom Meier:

Tom Meier’s (Ral Partha, 1979).

*Note: No Horns. *Also only stands at about 10’ to 12’ tall.
There is another one that went with this one, sculpted a couple of years later (this one was supposed to be the Balrog killed by Glorfindel on the Crissaegrim) that was the Balrog encountered by _The Fellowship_ in Moria (i.e. _Durin’s Bain_). It is a _*tad X-Rated*_, and would need pants down to his calves to obscure his “packages.”

This was not Tom’s first balrog. The first more closely resembled Duke Siegfried’s _Beast of Og_, but was clearly Richard Nixon (who had just resigned the year Ral Partha was founded). But Tom’s talent developed with such ferocious speed (especially after his discovery of Green-Stuff as _*THE Sculpting Media*_ of Miniatures for … ever… ) that it was decided in 1978 to replace everything with new Sculpts. And _*damned if they are not still some of the best Fantasy/Middle-earth connected Miniatures ever!*_

My favorite (and one being inserted into a revised scene of _The Fellowship_ from said original animated Feature) is that of Bryan Ansell’s:


It does have horns, albeit muted. 

Bryan said that he originally sculpted him “anatomically correct,” which is where Tom got his idea for his second Balrog, also MORE anatomically correct than Bryan’s (something tells me that they were in some sort of competition about whose “hands” were bigger… Or is that nose???)


Someplace I have a version of both of these, yet with the wings replaced with an articulated armature, and parchment used as the webbing in the wings. And Bryan’s balrog has digigrade feet added to it, similar to those on Tom’s.

I had planned to do an entire Series of Balrogs, all Seven, each Different, using Toms and Bryan’s as the basis for four of them (Ral Partha eventually released a “Ral, Lord of the Balrogs” figure that would make a decent Gothmog if you correct the duck-billed jaws ‚— which I have on one, I have just not completed it yet… again….. I had to re-do it, due to the original being stolen)

But it has no horns, either. 

I wish that I had access to mine at the moment, they are far better painted than either of these (I used to do the display minis for Partha, some Citadel, FASA, SJGames (OGRE/GEV, where you can still see much of it on their box-art), and some Historical miniature companies (Ships, Napoleonics, Ancients, Dark Ages). 

MB


----------



## Ent

Matthew Bailey said:


> As far as I can tell, the “first Appearance” of a Balrog


Thank you for the great information.
My reference was the first appearance of the horned bestial balrog, not the first ever appearance, just to be clear. 
yes there have been many other depictions, but I dare say none so copied.


----------



## Tar-Elenion

Ent said:


> Are we saying the Balrog was Ainu? I trust not. Nor Sauron of course.
> These were both of the Maiar, lesser in power and servants of the Ainur.
> Though they could shapeshift we cannot compare their capabilities or ongoing abilities to any Ainu.


The Valar and Maiar are all Ainur. 
"Ainur ‘The Holy Ones’ (singular Ainu); the first beings created by Ilúvatar, the ‘order’ of the Valar and Maiar, made before Eä."
Silmarillion, Index


----------



## Gloranthan

Ent said:


> Are we saying the Balrog was Ainu? I trust not. Nor Sauron of course.
> These were both of the Maiar, lesser in power and servants of the Ainur.
> Though they could shapeshift we cannot compare their capabilities or ongoing abilities to any Ainu.


I just used the wrong word. Yes, Maiar. And Maiar can do some shape shifting (some of them can). But I wonder, since so much of the Balrog is put into its fearsome body, if it had lost much of that ability. I bring that up because some contend the Balrog had wings if it felt like it, but I think it's consistent with what happened to Morgoth and Sauron to say that perhaps they couldn't shapeshift anymore.


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Gloranthan said:


> Ainur are definitely shape-shifters, but I wonder if putting so much of their power into physical form had made them incapable of changing much, as Morgoth and Sauron later suffered from. I don't think Tolkien says that anywhere, but it seems at least possible that they were 'stuck' in form. As for making themselves _appear_ larger, well, throwing giant shadows up around yourself would definitely do that. I seem to recall that Morgoth had put some of his own power into his creatures, though whether that includes the Balrog spirits, I can't recall.




I addressed that.

Tolkien addressed that.

See _*The Nature of Middle-earth*: Part Two; Chapter VIII: Ósanwe-Kenta, _and _Chapter XIV: The Visible Forms of the Valar and Maiar_.

They were not _*incapable*_ _of changing, _it was just that the _form_ and _Erma_/_Nessër_ became “habituated” to a certain _Pattern_.

Morgoth represents a special case in the fixation of his Form/_Fána _due to his attempting to become _Lord of the Physical Incarnation/World_. Sauron‘s fixed _Fána_ was due to something similar, but he did not lose _all ability to vary it_, until after the Akallabêth. 

The Balrogs are also Ainur.

I am still trying to locate it, but Gandalf is an example of a Maia who would have become a Balrog who would overcome Gothmog had he “Fallen.” Tolkien mentions that Olórin was a Spirit of Fire as a contrast to that of the Balrogs who joined Melkor’s rebellion. Arien, likewise was a similar Spirit of Fire, but so far beyond that of Olórin that it would be many, many times that of Olórin beyond that of Gothmog. 

The Balrogs are just the equivalents of the Seraphin and Cherubim who “Fell” in joining Lucifer. 

The Seraphim and Cherubim who _Fell_ as an analog to the Balrogs is also quite a point in favor of their having wings, as these *Ginormous Monsters, even when “Holy”* had not just one pair of wings, but Three to Six Pairs. 

Typically they are depicted as being six-winged, or twelve-winged. The latter became more common to Early-Christian Iconography, as opposed to earlier Judaic representations of Three-pairs of Wings, due to the number of the Apostles. Geez the Early-Christians were obsessed with those sorts of things.

But the Six-Winged/Three-pair-of-Wings had wings at the “Head/Shoulders,” at the “Middle of the Back,” and either at the hips or thighs. 

Sometimes these would be “Head-Shoulders-Feet.”

For the “Six Pairs of Wings, you have one on each Arm, one set on the feet (that is three-pair, or six-wings so far), one on the Head or Shoulders, one on the Back, and then again at the Hips.

Some of the depictions are freaking scary as all hell, for even those who are “_un-Fallen._”

Which, given their job as the “Greatest Warriors of God’s Heavenly Armies,” would make sense. Especially the Judaic versions, where God was not always “always ‘Good’,” and was often a vengeful, jealous, and wrathful bastard. 

But Tolkien would have been well-aware of these things, and his treatment of the Maiar and Valar is interesting in where the Ainur _*do *_and *do not* share characteristics, properties, and such with the Judaeo-Christian Angelology that the Ainur were modeled to be.

But they do suggest that Balrogs had wings, given most appearances of Angels have wings of some sort, even if they are able to “Veil” these to hide their “True Identities.” Balrogs would have lost that ability, as did most of the Fallen Angels in some form or another.

MB


----------



## Gloranthan

I am indifferent to the wings/no wings, though apparently Melkor didn't know how to make things that fly for some time. As long as the wings look like shadows. And the super-sized Balrog just makes no sense - it could have swept everyone off the bridge if it was that big. Or jumped over it. It has to have been relatively human sized. And the largest I've ever seen a Balrog pegged at is 2x elf height, and Tolkien seems to have revised that down later on. So, up to 16' tall with wings of shadow, sure. A T-Rex made of lava, I think is taking it too far, and also silly looking.


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Gloranthan said:


> I just used the wrong word. Yes, Maiar. And Maiar can do some shape shifting (some of them can). But I wonder, since so much of the Balrog is put into its fearsome body, if it had lost much of that ability. I bring that up because some contend the Balrog had wings if it felt like it, but I think it's consistent with what happened to Morgoth and Sauron to say that perhaps they couldn't shapeshift anymore.




See above comment. Morgoth is a special case, and Sauron only lost his due to an enormous error on his part. 

The Balrogs would have lost the shape shifting ability that Sauron retained to the end of the Second Age, but that would not mean they lost all ability to _*vary*_ that form. 

Such as being locked-into the “Form of a Horse” still gives you a Pegasus, Unicorn, Seahorse, etc. that one might “vary the form” of to manifest as.

And what would Greg have said about this subject (I know, as I used to argue with him all the time about it)?

I suspect you would know who that is (Stafford).

MB

P.S. It is such a pity that Heroquest took such a long time for him to create, and that it did not do better.

I had, long before it was released, cease allowing players in the games I ran to “know” their stats, using a system that Greg had shared with me at Origins in 1984 (I was Sec. To the Con. Chair) that was very-much like that he eventually used in Heroquest, whereby the players had only a vague sense of understanding of their skills (and, interestingly, while it had not yet been named, because of my own interest in the Cognitive Sciences I became aware of a phenomenon in which the unskilled tend to overestimate their skills, and the more-skilled tend to underestimate their’s; which had a correlate in people’s assessment of their intelligence, and thus compounded perceptions of skill, or lack thereof — we now call this the _*Dunning-Kruger Effect*_). 

The “Power gamer” in that group really chafed against it. Ironically, he was also who was most affected IRL by the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Ironically… But not surprisingly. Damn he was a ball of contradictions and hypocrisies.

The most dedicated players _*loved it*_. It is a pity that so many of them died at a younger age in the 90s and 00s.


----------



## Gloranthan

I think a lot of RPG players want to know their stats, though. I prefer crunch to narrative systems - give me 30 hit locations, let's play HarnMaster! I am the 'sandbox, anti-story, simulationist' type. And I like the type of hardcore-mode system that makes power-gaming very difficult. Min-max and you end up a cripple, and everyone can die in one hit, no matter what their Strength score is.


----------



## Ent

Gloranthan said:


> I just used the wrong word. Yes, Maiar. And Maiar can do some shape shifting (some of them can). But I wonder, since so much of the Balrog is put into its fearsome body, if it had lost much of that ability. I bring that up because some contend the Balrog had wings if it felt like it, but I think it's consistent with what happened to Morgoth and Sauron to say that perhaps they couldn't shapeshift anymore.


Yes the issue that they lose this ability after some time in one form, or due to other factors, is discussed somewhere.


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Gloranthan said:


> I am indifferent to the wings/no wings, though apparently Melkor didn't know how to make things that fly for some time. As long as the wings look like shadows. And the super-sized Balrog just makes no sense - it could have swept everyone off the bridge if it was that big. Or jumped over it. It has to have been relatively human sized. And the largest I've ever seen a Balrog pegged at is 2x elf height, and Tolkien seems to have revised that down later on. So, up to 16' tall with wings of shadow, sure. A T-Rex made of lava, I think is taking it too far, and also silly looking.






“Melkor” didn’t really care about whether things could fly.

Sauron was who had to do all the _Doing_ that Morgoth commanded or began.

I need to dig for the reference, but Tolkien says Morgoth was “too consumed with Rage and Fury” and “The necessity of extending his _Will/Indo_ to all of Creation, mostly to hold his slaves in thrall, kept him from being able to consummate any project he began, leaving it to Sauron.

The Dragons and Winged Dragons are one such “thing” that Sauron had to complete the _making_ of. But we have examples of beings like Thuringwethil who could fly, whether she was a product of Morgoth, or “something else.”

Tolkien used a particular version of the Satan/Lucifer Rebellion Myth that has _Satan_ as a distinct being from _The Devil_ (Morgoth and Sauron, respectively).

Danté used this model as well.

_Satan_ is trapped on his Throne in Hell, unable to leave it because of the need to bend his Will to the Enslaving of all those who come to his domain (Hell), and all of those on the Surface of the Earth to whom he is owed Loyalty.

While _The Devil_ is who is free to come/go from Hell, usually wandering the surface of the Earth, tempting others to Evil, and who is the one who “_Manifests_” the Evils of _Satan_.

Go watch some of the YouTube videos of Tolkien discussing Morgoth or Sauron. You’ll find that he consistently uses “_Satan_” to refer to Morgoth and “_The Devil_” to refer to Sauron.

This dual-person of Evil is akin to the Trinity for the Father/Son/Holy-Ghost thingy, whereby Lucifer is bifurcated or “split apart” in his Fall.

But “Angelology” is some messy, conflicting, contradictory business, with it becoming even messier when you start adding in the forms of Gnostic Christianity, or the many Heretical versions that existed over the first 1200 years of the CE.

But you are correct…

The Balrog would have been something akin to the Elves, only slightly larger, akin to the Valar and Maiar, who tended to 7’ to 9’ tall, tops (larger in stature, but not gigantic¹).

And that has typically been how they were thought of until some upside-down guy from the wrong side of the planet thought he would plagiarize Tolkien’s Novel in a series of Movies at the turn of the Century.

MB

1. For the specific quote and source:



> _*The Nature of Middle-earth*: Part Two; Chapter XIV: The Visible Forms of the Valar and Maiar, p. 245.:_
> 
> In these forms they presented themselves to the Elves (though they could assume other and wholly alien shapes), appearing usually as persons of majestic (but not gigantic) stature.





Gloranthan said:


> I think a lot of RPG players want to know their stats, though. I prefer crunch to narrative systems - give me 30 hit locations, let's play HarnMaster! I am the 'sandbox, anti-story, simulationist' type. And I like the type of hardcore-mode system that makes power-gaming very difficult. Min-max and you end up a cripple, and everyone can die in one hit, no matter what their Strength score is.


Ick!

I hated Harn. _*Iron Crown*_ did have a flair for visual design, though, and Mithril pretty much exists solely because of ICE.

Although they began at a period when Middle-earth was still thought to be of a kind with Hyborea, or Lankhmar, of the _Sword-and-Sorcery _genre.

I was disabused of this by Michael Moorcock pretty early on (1979 or 1980, can’t recall when), but he had advance knowledge of _*The History of Middle-earth*_*, *and advised that I pay close attention to it when it was published. He helped to get me into the Bodleian when I began school in England in the early-1980s to poke around as Christopher Tolkien was still crating-up everything and working on 

_*HoM-e*_. Pity Photocopiers were not allowed in the Library at that time (They had a thing to take photos of pages so the books did not get bent flat on their spines, or that manuscripts would be exposed to high UV light sources).

I was heavily involved though with several highly-detailed games of that period. I think my name is on the back of every Star Fleet Battles expansion and supplement prior to 1989. That ended as I expected it would, as Steve Cole is a … jerk… 

Advanced Squad Leader… Did a Command-Control system for it that you can find the template for in GDW Games such as _*Striker *_and _*Command Decision*_.

But working for a while as an Intern at the US Navy War College thanks to a benefactor who was an Admiral who taught at yet another University I attended, had taught me that “Massive Detail” is largely a waste of time, given that most things can be abstracted to a set of statistical outcomes most common for a given “event.” Running Projects and Problems for Officers in the Military showed that we didn’t need supercomputers calculating the trajectory of shells, nor their precise hit locations to get very realistic results that were arrived at much more quickly, and able to force players to work in Real Time. 

WRG Eventually adopted that model for its Rule-Systems over the prior “simulate everything” approach. And we don’t seem to be going back to the other method of micro-managing.

MB


----------



## Ent

Matthew Bailey said:


> I need to dig for the reference, but Tolkien says Morgoth was “too consumed with Rage and Fury” and “The necessity of extending his _Will/Indo_ to all of Creation, mostly to hold his slaves in thrall, kept him from being able to consummate any project he began, leaving it to Sauron.
> 
> The Dragons and Winged Dragons are one such “thing” that Sauron had to complete the _making_ of. But we have examples of beings like Thuringwethil who could fly, whether she was a product of Morgoth, or “something else.”


Ouch, these are things I've not read of anywhere yet.
Can you provide the references for them please?

I HAVE read Melkor gave a great deal of his power over to controlling his servants. Sauron did as well.
But the only thing I've heard Sauron handling were the werewolves. (Though of course we know Sauron was Morgoth's most feared and powerful servant.)
Would really like to know where we fine Melkor not being able to complete things and turning it all over to Sauron.


----------



## Gloranthan

> But working for a while as an Intern at the US Navy War College thanks to a benefactor who was an Admiral who taught at yet another University I attended, had taught me that “Massive Detail” is largely a waste of time, given that most things can be abstracted to a set of statistical outcomes most common for a given “event.”


That can be true if what you want to run is a statistically accurate simulation. But it also requires the GM and players to be on the same page with interpretation, and requires us to 'make up' the results, putting a lot of strain on the creativity of the person running it to create varied and plausible outcomes. While the specific outcomes of GURPS or Mythras may or may not map onto statistical probabilities, it inherently includes a lot of those details and specifics, so that we can focus our energy on other things.
I am also a big fan of domain games and 'wargaming' in RPGs, which can become very ridiculous if done in an entirely abstract manner. My favorite part about D&D is the logistics of maintaining a force of 12 hirelings!
Although I very much like roleplaying as though I were the character in the situation, having all those details provided automatically by the system itself helps me to act and construct in a more consistent, coherent manner than if I was playing the game RISUS! and having to figure out what it meant when my cook rolled higher on his dice than Sauron did.
I also have a tremendous tolerance for rules, math, spreadsheets and fiddly bits. In fact, I enjoy these things even outside of roleplaying games. And the 'game' part of RPG is at least as important to me as the 'role-playing' part, because otherwise I can just shoot the breeze and tell stories without any kind of mechanical framework. The complex ways that rules interact to create specific and varied outcomes creates a lot of verisimilitude and variety in the play experience.
On the other hand, this means that I am pretty much limited to playing RPGs with war-gamers or people who could be game-masters themselves, and that game sessions will have to be about five hours long to manage. But I have no children, make my own hours at work, and long-term campaign play is far more interesting to me than one-off scenarios. As I indicated earlier, I don't see RPGs as a means of telling a story, but of presenting various puzzles and obstacles to overcome and environments to explore - exploration which is more authentic if all the little bits are set out ahead of time, instead of being pure invention by the game master which had no existence before I came into the room. The 'story' comes afterward, I may tell a story later about the events of a game. But the point of a fishing trip isn't fishing stories, it's going fishing - the stories are a result, not the objective or the content.

As a game master, I will do hours of prep for every session. Often, more hours than we play for (because everything I prep won't be used).

My cyberpunk/technothriller hard-scifi setting for GURPS had _twelve pages of optional rules_. The space ships had to have heat radiators or they'd overheat, and the only space settlements were in near Earth orbit or on the moon. Though most of them only applied in very specific scenarios. I also had three folders of over 50 pages each for all the different weapons and gear. _GURPS Spaceships_ uses real physics equations (albeit simplified) to figure out travel times and vectors. After all, David Pulver is a particle physicist.

The most 'narrative' style game I play is Burning Wheel, a game which requires each player to have a printed sheet and plan out their moves three turns in advance to simulate the chaotic nature of combat so you can't optimize every action, and which essentially requires the book to be open at the table when you play.

To me, it matters whether my character got stabbed in the arm or had his hand crushed, because in real life, it does matter! I tend towards 'realism' in the sense of having results which reflect actual experiences, and to the extent there are fantastic elements I also want them baked into the rules so their various knock-on effects are all reflected. This also requires me to plan out my settings in more detail, so the logic of the magic or elves is reflected in how the world works and the status quo, but I enjoy this. Sometimes I enjoy making spreadsheets of different fictional metals as much as actually playing.

When I statted out Superman for GURPS he had four quadrillion points worth of Strength. Having that play out logically, instead of by Comic Book Convenience, was part of the reason I made him in GURPS. Having it hand-waved as 'real strong' just isn't the same.

In AD&D I use weapon vs. armor tables, weapon speeds and round segments!

I do play some 'rules lite' games like BX D&D, but I always keep track of encumbrance, rations, etc. The logistics is at the heart of an exploration expedition, the main challenge of it. And, in BX, a 10th level fighter can die in two hits from an Orc (though it's unlikely). Combat is a last resort! Stealing money is the main thing.

I'm the same way with video games. I play grand strategy games where infrastructure and money management is 80% of gameplay. I never go to war unless I can crush and humiliate my enemies as quickly as possible! Drilling up my Napoleonic troops until they stack-wipe the enemy army in one day and take no losses (not realistic, but fun).

This kind of thing is a matter of taste, I've found. Some people will play both types of games, but most people simply find one or the other style and have no interest in the other.


----------



## Ent

This be the Do Balrog/s Have Wings thread, so if we want to talk about a lot of RPG things a different thread will be more suitable. Thanks.


----------



## Gloranthan

Ent said:


> This be the Do Balrog/s Have Wings thread, so if we want to talk about a lot of RPG things a different thread will be more suitable. Thanks.


Agreed.
I am also interested in the 'Morgoth can't finish anything' thread of the conversation as it relates to Balrogs, I do not recall reading that but it's been a while and I have not read all of JRR's letters.


----------



## Ent

Yes, this will take me a little more research. Perhaps MB can help us…but I’ll find the information eventually. (Ent is patient and persistent)


----------



## Gloranthan

Ent said:


> Yes, this will take me a little more research. Perhaps MB can help us…but I’ll find the information eventually. (Ent is patient and persistent)


Morgoth is kind of the biggest screw up, self defeating narcissist in history, so I wouldn't be surprised. He's the Thanos of Middle Earth, "I am like unto a god, now I shall shoot myself in the foot! My nose troubles me, I shall cut it off!"


----------



## Ent

He and Sauron had many similarities…no surprise.
both were so self- focused they missed the obvious.
And as Morgoth spread himself so thin he left himself vulnerable, so Sauron poured so much of his power into the ring he too left himself vulnerable.

the ring was actually his Achilles heel.
If he had it, he was all powerful (in his times.)
If he didn’t have it, some other powerful being could master it, and so him…or it could be lost forever, leaving him forever weak and vulnerable… or it could be destroyed, destroying him as well.

the “Lord” of the Rings was very much also the one rings slave, living forever in fear without it.

his poisoned mindset, not recognizing those not power hungry would actually think about destroying it, caused him to completely fail to secure himself against the worst of the catastrophes he faced and feared…just as Morgoth failed to reason to all possible end results of his course of action.

evil may be powerful, but it’s limitations in thinking also make it blind. (Frankly, if we look around us, we continue to see both the extents, and the limitations, of evil in the same ways every day on many levels.)


----------



## Gloranthan

> If he didn’t have it, some other powerful being could master it, and so him…or it could be lost forever, leaving him forever weak and vulnerable… or it could be destroyed, destroying him as well.


As I recall, this is basically why Frodo succeeded (with the help of Eru). Sauron thought Aragorn was going to wield the one ring and crush him with it, which is why Sauron sent his entire army to the Black Gate to defend himself. If he wasn't peeing himself fearing that a Numenorean would get some black magic revenge, and so oblivious to the possibility that someone would destroy the thing rather than use it, he could have stationed half the orcs on the planet to do patrols around Mt. Doom. Instead he tried to win the wrong fight, peaked out his window and saw that little Bagginses, and realized too late that he'd been tricked.

Being the smartest, strongest, most experienced being on the planet does diddly squat when you're fighting your own blind spots.


----------



## Ent

Precisely. Aragorn “or some other powerful one.”
It’s somewhat oxymoronic to realize in trying to be Lord through the One, he made himself it’s slave.
And we begin to see since he poured a great deal of his power into it, which was always bent to corruption, (Morgoth, anyone?), the ring was also further corrupting him in his lust for it.
Very much the Achilles syndrome.


----------



## Matthew Bailey

Ent said:


> Ouch, these are things I've not read of anywhere yet.
> Can you provide the references for them please?
> 
> I HAVE read Melkor gave a great deal of his power over to controlling his servants. Sauron did as well.
> But the only thing I've heard Sauron handling were the werewolves. (Though of course we know Sauron was Morgoth's most feared and powerful servant.)
> Would really like to know where we fine Melkor not being able to complete things and turning it all over to Sauron.



I am looking for the references over the next day or two (I have a very limited amount of time per day in which I can do anything, due to our abysmal Healthcare System in the USA, and the paranoia and/or hysteria of Doctors in dealing with “outliers.” But given this is something that seems to come-up so often, I figured it is a priority to add the references to the bibliography I have for these things).

But it is something that I remembered particularly given where I was when I read it (too much to go into here).

It would help if digital versions of all volumes of *HoM-e* were available. I think that I have everything up to (but not including) _*Vol V: The Shadow Returns.*_

And a quick check of Amazon shows that Vols X, XI, and XII are not yet available on Kindle.

Making such searches much slower.

But I will get back to this, as it, and another few topics are things for which I need to assemble the respective citations given how often they come up.

I have found that there are really a vanishingly small set of questions about Middle-earth that either have no explicit answer from Tolkien, or one that is directly-implicit in the Foundations of Middle-earth, and Eä as a whole.

*The Nature of Middle-earth’s* publication _finally_ produces an account of the Thomist nature of the beings in Middle-earth, such that we have Catholic examinations of the implied Metaphysics whereby everything we would call _Supernatural_ is explained in some fashion. Combined with Tolkien’s comments on these subjects both within the narrative of the Novels, or within Tolkien’s various commentary on it, we have everything from how the various forms of Undead come into being, and “_Exist_,” to how Dragons function in such a world where the laws of Aerodynamics, Chemistry, Biology, and so-forth, are otherwise unchanged from our own, yet the addition of the _Nësser _(Materials/Substances) associated with what we would call the _Spirit_ or _Fëar_ (even though the latter is only one aspect of the “Insubstantial” Properties and Materials that contribute to the “not Bodily” portion of the Hylomorphism _Miröanwi_).

These are subjects that tend to be dominated by the _Religious_ who tend to be unable to explore the subjects _beyond_ that “Faith.” That tends to create a rejection of the influence such things have on what we call the _Physical-World_, yet such things must necessarily interact and produce causal relationships.

Anyway… I’ll get back to this again, soon.

MB


----------



## Ent

Matthew Bailey said:


> Anyway… I’ll get back to this again, soon.


I appreciate it. 
As I have time I'll be searching the subject out as well. Always looking to increase my knowledge.
(I've come a little ways since I started back in June of this year. I think I know maybe 3 things now.) 

I have everything digitally able to be had digitally... you're correct, X, XI and XII are (oddly) still not in that form so the paperbacks clutter my shelf just to my left (when I'm in the home office.)


----------



## Elthir

I prefer the idea that Tolkien used the wing-_image_ in the Moria encounter. Fallen angel images might come to mind of course, but for me, the shadow cloak taking wing shape adds a nice twist.

And the visual is nearly the same: a "winged" demon is set before the Fellowship, as well as the eye
of the Reader.



Gloranthan said:


> (. . .) And the largest I've ever seen a Balrog pegged at is 2x elf height, and Tolkien seems to have revised that down later on.



I think this "twice elf height" idea hails from the early Book of Lost Tales _Fall of Gondolin,_ in
the description of Glorfindel fighting "his" Balrog [*"for that demon was double his stature"*] --
but one might ask how tall was Glorfindel in this early conception?

Well, I won't go into that (I have before) as, in any case, I don't believe in Jacksonian Balrogs either!


----------



## Gloranthan

I recall reading the Glorfindel was originally pegged at nearly eight feet (that's a big boy!), but Tolkien later thought this was a bit much. But, going for the eight foot limit is why I put down 'sixteen feet' as the upper range.
Given their superior biological efficiency and resiliency it's not unreasonable for an elf to be eight foot tall, but it would make visiting the neighbors a bit awkward.
"Uh, just sit on the floor".


----------



## Elthir

Gloranthan said:


> I recall reading the Glorfindel was originally pegged at nearly eight feet (that's a big boy!), but Tolkien later thought this was a bit much. But, going for the eight foot limit is why I put down 'sixteen feet' as the upper



I don't recall that height given for Glorfindel (in late or early texts), but anyway, what I was trying to get at is: when a young Tolkien wrote _The Book of Lost Tales_ [including that early version of _The Fall of_ _Gondolin_ in which the Demon is said to be double Glorfindel's stature], did he imagine that the Elves
of Gondolin were, generally speaking, "smallish", as in the size of mortal children?

It gets a bit convoluted. Christopher Tolkien comments . . .



> Nuin's words to Tu on the stature of the sleepers in the vale of Murmenalda are curious. In A is added: _'Men were almost of a stature at first with Elves, the fairies being far greater and Men smaller than now. As the power of Men has grown the fairies have dwindled and Men waxed somewhat.'_ Other early statements indicate that Men and Elves were originally of very similar stature, and that the diminishing in that of the Elves was closely related to the coming of, and the dominance of, Men.



But [my emphasis] . . .



> Nuin's words are therefore puzzling, especially since in A they immediately preceded the comment on the original similarity of size; for he can surely only mean that the sleepers in Murmenalda were very large by comparison with the Elves. That the sleepers were in fact children, not merely likened in some way to children, is made clear in D: "_Nuin finds the Slumbrous Dale (Murmenalda) where countless children lie" _Christopher Tolkien, The Book of Lost Tales



Nuin had said: _*"(...) nor any the more when Nuin made an end of his tale, telling of all he saw there -- and methought," said he, "that all who slumbered there were children, yet was their stature that of the greatest of the Elves."*_

That noted, I haven't done the work (yet) to see if it's even possible to tell just how certain this idea was at a given moment in the external timeline, and if so, how long it held on. Is it "behind" _The Fall of Gondolin_ [the story]? In any case, it's also said that the Noldoli that came forth to see Tuor *marvelled 
at his stature* and gaunt limbs.

Another quote: *"Tis written that in those days the fathers of the fathers of Men were of less stature than Men now are, and the children of Elfinesse of greater growth, yet was Tuor taller than any that stood there. Indeed the Gondothlim were not bent of back as some of their unhappy kin became, labouring without rest at delving and hammering for Melko, **but small 
were they and slender and very lithe." *JRRT, The Fall of Gondolin, The Book of Lost Tales

Of course, even if a young Tolkien played with smallish Elves at this time, he changed his mind later, but if Glorfindel was [back then] smallish, that would alter the height of his Balrog -- which was an early kind of Balrog anyway!

Or something


----------



## Gloranthan

I may be confusing the height with some other Elf, is been since time since I read much of the sources outside the novels. But I very strongly recall some Elf being given a height of nigh eight feet and Tolkien seemingly downsizing him later. But I no longer recall where that was or what the context was.
If elves were indeed wee at the time, that would give an upper height of eight or ten feet for that Balrog.

I am inclined to believe Tolkien was intentionally vague so that his readers would fill it in, or simply because mythology is like that. I'm not sure what he would think of the volume of argument about Balrog wings and appearance which, connecting all the posts and blogs, may exceed the length of the novel it appeared in.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

Just think of the amount of commentary on Shakespeare, compared to the extant plays and poems he produced.

Some years ago, in an issue of one of the literary magazines marking publishing milestones of the year, the classicist Mary Beard celebrated the fact that a project publishing just the _Classical _commentary on Aristotle had reached 100 volumes. 

I think we have a ways to go. 😄


----------



## Elthir

Gloranthan said:


> (. . .) But I very strongly recall some Elf being given a height of nigh eight feet and Tolkien seemingly downsizing him later.



You might be thinking of Elendil, or comparing some Elf to the description of Elendil given in _Unfinished_ _Tales_? Anyway, we have a thread titled "Height of Elrond" which includes various statements about Numenorean and Elvish heights.









Height of Elrond


Well my question is does it ever say anywhere how tall Elrond was. I ask because his father must have been very tall because his grandfather Tuor and both his great grandfathers Turgon & Thingol were extremly tall. Any opinions anyone interested in height of Elves and Edain ? THANKS




www.thetolkienforum.com





I blather a bit in this thread. Not sure if I still agree with me on all points though. I was young-er!


----------



## Gloranthan

*Thingol*. I must have read some speculation along these lines:


> Elendil the Tall (who is a fair guess for the title of tallest man) was said to be “_more than man-high by nearly half a ranga_” - a ranga being 38 inches, or 95cm, long. Meaning that Elendil would have been 7'11" (241 cm)! Which just seems crazy to me - and it might be! In a note included in The Lord of the Rings Companion, Tolkien mentions that Elendil was only 7 feet tall (213cm.)
> So, depending on which version of Elendil’s height you believe, it seems that the lowest possible height for Thingol could range anywhere from a little over 7 feet or a little over 8 feet (213-244cm) Then, depending on how tall you believe Elendil was in comparison to other elves


This is a ridiculous height in itself, but as I said, elves are special people. No offense to the small group of seven foot plus humans.


----------



## Gloranthan

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Just think of the amount of commentary on Shakespeare, compared to the extant plays and poems he produced.
> 
> ...
> 
> I think we have a ways to go. 😄


I've read a few Shakespeare plays (my favorite is _The Merchant of Venice, _but _King Lear_ and _Hamlet _are also great) as well as read into his contributions to the English vocabulary. Although I probably like Robert E. Howard more (for different reasons), I have to say I prefer Tolkien to Shakespeare. Now, if Shakespeare had more elves...


----------

