# Who would win, Smaug or a Balrog



## cab345

I'm quite curious what you think


----------



## BlackCaptain

Since Dragons are generaly stronger than Balrogs, id say Smaug. But it depends wich Balrog we're talking about. If it was any ol' balrog id say Smaug definately. If it was Gothmog, i'd say it would be a VERY good fight.

Good thread


----------



## *Lady Arwen*

Smaug, go Smaug!


----------



## redline2200

Smaug, hands down.


----------



## Beorn

Think....A balrog is a Maia, a godly being. It doesn't die when you kill its body. A dragon dies when its body is slain. Clearly, without a doubt a balrog would win.


----------



## Ithrynluin

There have been so many threads like this one...and in each one I've been in favour of the Balrogs. No difference here.


----------



## gate7ole

Oh, again this topic!
Dragons vs Balrogs.
I'm with beorn and ithrynluin(yes, it happened) here.
Balrogs win.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Gate7ole, it's your 1000th post *AND* you agree with me. This sure is a special occasion. 

What does everyone think: could a dragon put a spell on a Balrog, much as Glaurung put a spell on Turin by looking him in the eyes.


----------



## FoolOfATook

While I voted for the Balrog, I've begun thinking. If an Elf can kill a Balrog, doesn't that suggest that the battle between a dragon and a Balrog might not be as clear cut as one might initially think? Just an idle musing...


----------



## BlackCaptain

its been established that Dragons are more powerful than Balrogs; be they Maia or not. Any old Balrog, versus any old Dragon... a Dragon would win. Smaug is any old dragon cuz... he's nuthin special really... he's just mentioned in The Hobbit quite a bit...


----------



## FoolOfATook

1. Where is it established that dragons are more powerful than Balrogs? Because, several people here seem to believe otherwise...

2. Smaug is not "any old dragon". Check out Gandalf's concerns about Smaug in "The Quest for Erebor" in UT.


----------



## Goldberry344

I voted for A balrog. Due to Darwin's theory.

Smaug was a rare dragon. one left from long ago. one of the last, i believe.

Balrogs were feirceom (sp?) and hard to defeat.

over the history of fairy tales you hear of the defeat of dragons. therefore we can conclude that they were easier killed than balrogs cause you never hear of people killing balrogs cause they never tried cause it was too hard.

ok. so there are a lot of loopholes in that theory, but it is my theory none the less.


----------



## FoolOfATook

I'm sorry, but I'm a strict Fairy Tale Creationist. No room for Darwinism here.


----------



## Ithrynluin

> _Originally posted by FoolOfATook _
> *If an Elf can kill a Balrog, doesn't that suggest that the battle between a dragon and a Balrog might not be as clear cut as one might initially think? *



There were three battles occuring with Balrogs:

- Glorfindel vs. a Balrog: both perished
- Echtelion vs. Gothmog: both perished
- Gandalf vs. a Balrog: both perished

There were four battles with Dragons:

- Turin vs. Glaurung: Turin killed the dragon without dying himself
- Eärendil vs. Ancalagon: Eärendil killed the dragon
- Fram vs. Scatha: Fram killed the dragon
- Bard vs. Smaug: Bard killed the dragon

Can any conclusion be made from this? The Balrogs fought with two Eldar and a Maia, and all of them perished in the fight.
The Dragons fought with three men and a half-elf and none of the latter died in combat. 
Do I really have to say it out loud? The Balrogs would win over dragons any day!


----------



## FoolOfATook

ithrynluin- don't get me wrong, I agree that a Balrog could take a dragon. I was just speculating, idly. I hadn't thought about the fates of various dragons, but you're absolutely right.


----------



## jossy

*Way to go Balrog...*

Definitively Balrogs.....Why I don't have a clue but thay are so cool...


----------



## Goldberry344

yeah, ithrynluin i was tryin to say something of that sort.


----------



## BlackCaptain

> _Originally posted by FoolOfATook _
> *1. Where is it established that dragons are more powerful than Balrogs? Because, several people here seem to believe otherwise... *





> _From Characters From Tolkein, by David Day_
> Of all Melkor's creatures, only Dragons were greater in power.



Now, even if this is not true, Smaug was the last of the GREAT dragons. Im not sure how great they are, but that title must mean something. And if it was Smaug, a great Dragon against any old Balrog, i'd say Smaug would win.


----------



## FoolOfATook

Come on Morgulking, you should know better than to try to use David Day as proof. His stuff has several mistakes....and even if it didn't, it's still not Tolkien.



> Now, even if this is not true, Smaug was the last of the GREAT dragons. Im not sure how great they are, but that title must mean something. And if it was Smaug, a great Dragon against any old Balrog, i'd say Smaug would win.





> Smaug is any old dragon cuz... he's nuthin special really...



....


----------



## Ithrynluin

> From Characters From Tolkein, by David Day
> Of all Melkor's creatures, only Dragons were greater in power.



MorgulKing, does Tolkien ever say something like that in his works?


----------



## Beorn

> _Originally posted by ithrynluin _
> *MorgulKing, does Tolkien ever say something like that in his works? *



According to David Day, Tolkien did


----------



## Anamatar IV

I have to go with Balrogs on this one. It would have been a lot tougher choice by Beorn's logic won me over


----------



## Lady_of_Gondor

I have to agree with what the others said. It seems to me that if a simple man could take on Smaug and not even Gandalf (an Istari) could take on a Balrog, then where's the question here. Balrogs are definately the stronger!


----------



## BlackCaptain

Aright everybody, you win. Ya got me FoolofaTook. Im not worty of your superiority... hehe.


----------



## Huan

I'm not sure what the outcome would be, but just using pure logic, it doesn't follow that because a man can take on (and defeat) a dragon but a "greater being" than man (i.e an elf or maia) can't usually survive a fight with a balrog that a balrog would neccessarily beat a dragon. 

This would be the same as assuming that because a rock would beat scissors and scissors beat paper then rock should beat paper. This we know to be untrue.

Dunno if this makes sense but its just a point someone might to like to try to tear apart 

On a practical note we could suppose that a balrog is less suited to fighting a dragon than it is to fighting an elf. However, i don't know how a dragon could fight a balrog as the dragons main fire-breathing attack would be pretty pointless!


----------



## Tolkien Adictee

Obvious a Balrog would win. Smaug is dead. LOL. 

But really, I think a balrog would win anyways. Balrogs are, I think, more powerful than a dragon.


----------



## redline2200

Did everyone forget the War of Wrath? Was it a host of Balrogs that drove the Valar themselves back? No, it was a host of dragons. If dragons can fight off the _Valar themselves_, then I wouldn't put them down as much as some people have been. 

And as far as Smaug is concerned, please remember that when Tolkien wrote the hobbit, he was writing it as a single story. And as a single story if the dragon did not die then it would be a bad ending. As far as a simple man killing him, people must put into perspective the intentions of the author at the conception of the story. I still stand by Samug as the victor.


----------



## Ithrynluin

How many Balrogs do you think there were originally? Not too many I would say. And how many Balrogs were left when the War of Wrath was at hand? Gothmog was gone, and so was "Glorfindel's" Balrog.
It was not possible to breed Balrogs, their numbers were finite, whereas Melkor *created* the dragons. Glaurung, the Father of Dragons, was first seen when half of the first Age was over. Melkor enhanced his breeding methods until the War of Wrath, and he could breed as many dragons as he wanted (or so it appears). I suppose Melkor bred a whole fleet of dragons before the War, and the chief of these was Ancalagon. No use in saying then "Was it a host of Balrogs that drove the Valar themselves back?" The Balrogs were too few to have led an (aerial?) assault.

Balrogs were far more priceless and precious than dragons. The only dragons that could stand up to the Balrogs in some respects, are Glaurung and especially Ancalagon (since he appears to be more warlike than Glaurung, and therefore a good opponent for a Balrog, who was a warlike creature).


----------



## username

Really old thread, but...



Ithrynluin said:


> There were three battles occuring with Balrogs:
> 
> - Glorfindel vs. a Balrog: both perished
> - Echtelion vs. Gothmog: both perished
> - Gandalf vs. a Balrog: both perished
> 
> There were four battles with Dragons:
> 
> - Turin vs. Glaurung: Turin killed the dragon without dying himself
> - Eärendil vs. Ancalagon: Eärendil killed the dragon
> - Fram vs. Scatha: Fram killed the dragon
> - Bard vs. Smaug: Bard killed the dragon
> 
> Can any conclusion be made from this? The Balrogs fought with two Eldar and a Maia, and all of them perished in the fight.
> The Dragons fought with three men and a half-elf and none of the latter died in combat.
> Do I really have to say it out loud? The Balrogs would win over dragons any day!



Shouldn't the context be considered? All the balrog encounters were (presumably) "fair fights" that took place in the midst of battle: just two combatants going at it face to face. 

The dragon encounters are different. Turin stabbed Glaurung from beneath when the big guy didn't even know he was there. In their first encounter, which was in a battle, Turin and his men were routed by Glaurung. In their second encounter, Glaurung bewitched Turin by looking into his eyes. Turin only won with preparation time, a sneak attack, and favorable conditions, and even with all this he was poisoned by Glaurung's blood and fell into a coma until Niniel (or was it Brandir) healed his hand. In _Children of Hurin_, Turin even told his men that attacking the dragon head on would only bring their deaths.

I'll give you Earendil and Fram, though the details of those battles are even vaguer than the balrog encounters, which is saying something. 

As with Glaurung, Smaug was killed by an enemy whom he didn't even know existed. Bard would have been a pile of ash if he tried fighting Smaug in a more straightforward manner.

Anyway, if balrogs can be killed by errant elves who ram their helmet spikes into their chests, I don't see why a dragon, who's better armed and armored than any elf and among the physically strongest denizens of Middle-Earth, would fare any worse.

This is not to say that dragons would win every time, of course, or even most of the time. Glaurung was driven from battle once by the dwarf Azaghal who managed to get in a good stab at his unprotected underbelly, and since iirc the dwarf only managed to get this close because of his somewhat fire-proof dwarven armor and face-mask, it stands to reason that a balrog (being constantly on fire himself) would be even more resistant to dragon-fire and thus have a better chance of exploiting this weakness common to almost all dragons.

However, we were discussing Smaug here, whose formerly vulnerable underbelly is encrusted with layers of hard, protective jewels, and has only one small, unprotected patch. The question then is whether the balrog would notice this weakness in time, before he got crushed or bitten in half or smacked to smithereens by Smaug's tail. It's also an open question whether the balrog would be able to mortally wound Smaug by stabbing deep into one of his eyes or something. It'd be a good fight, without an obvious victor in my opinion.


----------



## Illuin

Well, since I haven't played yet, might as well have a little fun and throw in my two cents.

There has never been a battle between a Balrog and a Fire Drake, so all of the aforementioned battles between Elves vs. Balrogs, Men vs. Dragons, Gandalf/Dwarves vs. Durin’s Bane etc.; regardless of the outcome are irrelevant. Just like sports, it’s all about how opponents match up. The first place team might always lose to the last place team simply because the match up doesn’t jive. You have to look at the opponents for what they are, and the abilities they have. The fact that a Balrog is a Maia and a Dragon is not has nothing to do with the battle; it’s only relevant in the afterlife, when the battle is over. Let's see:




Fire Resistant: *Smaug*-Yes / *Balrog*-Yes

Ability to Fly: *Smaug*-Yes / *Balrog*-No

Projectile Flames: *Smaug*-Yes / *Balrog*-No

Thick Armor: *Smaug*-Yes / *Balrog*-No

Deadly Whip: *Smaug*-Yes (tail) / *Balrog*-Yes

Enormous in stature: *Smaug*-Yes / *Balrog*-No

Highly Intelligent: *Smaug*-Yes / *Balrog*- ?

Rips, Tears, Eats: *Smaug*-Yes / *Balrog*-No (may eat)

Breaks Spells: *Smaug*- ? / *Balrog*-Yes

Casts Spells: *Smaug*-Yes / *Balrog*- ?


Well, it’s obvious the Balrog has a substantial disadvantage. Also, why did Morgoth wait so long to attack during the Siege of Angband? Couldn’t he have just sent Gothmog out there to break the siege? Probably, but he wasn’t confident with that strategy. He instead wanted to be sure he was going to have the victory; so he patiently waited for his deadliest weapon to mature; Glaurung! And it worked; the Battle of Sudden Flame was devastating 

. And personally, I think Smaug would have no problem taking out Glaurung if circumstances arose.

So, do I think a Balrog could take Smaug?....not a chance in hell.


----------



## Prince of Cats

Well said, Illuin  

As with any fight it would definitely depend on the circumstances. As pointed out, the deaths of Glaurung and Smaug are no indication of their power, unless you mean to say it took a whole villiage (down to their last arrow) or an assassin's blow to finally take them


----------



## Firawyn

Belrog. 

Belrogs lasted the ages, dragons wither and die. I think it has more to do with strategy than strength. 

If a belrog and a Smaug had a battle, it would be of Smaug's choosing, because a Belrog wouldn't leave it's lair (unless ordered), which gives him an upfront and immediate advantage.


----------



## YayGollum

Huh. I never wrote in this thread? Apparently I voted, probably for dragons. Both sides of this debate seem to be very confident that they are correct. I haven't seen any devastating blows being dealt (at least, nobody took them as devastating and responded in kind). Anti-climactic, yo. But then, it's less of a showy debate and more of a meandering argument. Both sides have already used plenty of great points, but they aren't attacking the other side, really. 

1. Balrogs are Ainur type things. So what? Some people use this as an argument and leave it at that. Sometimes they add that, because of their race, they can't be killed. That part is craziness. Plenty of Ainur type things have been killed. They (just like any other race) can only come back via special circumstances. It seems that these people believe that because they are immortal and have lots of creepy powers, that they are in an entirely different class and to compare them to other races is laughable. I see no evidence of this when Ainur type things have been killed by other races plenty of times, via the same tactics they'd use on anything else (I admit that if I had to worry about such matches, I'd be worried about all kinds of terrifyingly powerful Ainuric possibilities, but, from what I've read, it seems that my fears don't matter too much).

2. Everyone died with their balrog opponent. So what? As the Illuin person points out, in a contest between two sentients, the odds can be figured, but the results are never definite. There's not enough written about most of the balrog and dragon fights for me to prove that one is generally weaker than another. The reason that balrog opponents always died tells me more about the opponents than about a balrog's strength versus a dragon's. Those opponents were either idiots, too focused on fighting past the balrog's fear ability to think more clearly, or the balrog just didn't seem scary enough to warrant more planning. It is obvious to those up against dragons that they will most probably die. The things easily take out armies. Thought is employed. 

Is there some other point I should move my attention towards? I just popped in really quick.


----------



## Úlairi

Unfortunately I don't share the sentiments of the dragon-lovers of the forum. What's even more peculiar is that this thread is five years old!

First it is necessary to look at the origins of Dragons and Balrogs and their respective ancestries (or lack thereof).



> *The Silmarillion: Valaquenta - Of the Enemies*
> 
> 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 the Balrogs, demons of terror.


 


> *The Silmarillion: Of the Return of the Noldor*
> 
> ...Glaurung, the first of the Urulóki, the fire-drakes of the North, issued from Angband's gates by night.


 
Tolkien never once referred to the dragons (to my knowledge) as being any of the Ainur, it is therefore safe to assume that the Balrogs, as Maia, were the greater of the two. The above quote is the first mention of any Dragon in _The Silmarillion_.

Let's have a look at the resumés of the greatest of each of the two species nevertheless:


*Gothmog*


- Slew Fëanor, greatest of the Noldor, at Dor Daedeloth.
- Slew Fingon the Valiant the High King of the Noldor on the plains of Anfauglith.
- Dragged Húrin into Angband after the defeat in the Nirnaeth Arnoediad.
- Slew Ecthelion and was finally slain in _The Fall of Gondolin_.
*Glaurung*


- Glaurung, scarce half-grown and got his a** handed to him by Fingon with his group of Elvish archers.
- Slew Noldor and Men and crushed the hill-forts of the Noldor at Ard-galen *with the help of balrogs*.
- Overcame Maehdros' defence at the great fortress at the Hill of Himring which closed the Pass of Aglon preventing entrance into Beleriand and subsequently destroyed all the lands between the arms of Gelion.
- Wounded by Azaghâl of the Naugrim (Dwarves), Lord of Belegost in the Nirnaeth Arnoediad but nonetheless killed him.
- Defiled the Eithel Irvin and burned the Talath Dirnen aka the Guarded Plain between Narog and Teiglin.
- Overcome Nargothrond, the fortress of Finrod Felagund. He then cast a hypnotic spell upon Túrin and subsequently got *his eyes stabbed out*.
- Temporarily blinded Mablung, chief captain of Thingol.
- Laid a spell of darkness and forgetfulness on Nienor, who subsequently married her brother Túrin and consequently committed suicide.
- Slain by Túrin at Cabed-en-Aras.

All Glaurung was really good for was storming fortresses, he was a battering-ram; nothing more. Gothmog slew three of the greatest of the Eldar. If I was taking the interview, it seems to me that Gothmog and thus the balrogs would get the job.

One argument that I would put forward is that Smaug it seems, according to contemplations of JRRT, would have been recruited into the services of Sauron:



> *Unfinished Tales - The Quest of Erebor*
> 
> The Dragon Sauron might use with terrible effect.


 
It may, IMO, have been a little more difficult for Sauron to seduce a Balrog into his service, as they are spiritual equals, despite Sauron having the greater power.

Smaug was defeated and slain by King Bard of the line of Girion in _The Hobbit_, whereas the Balrog encountered in Moria slew and was slain by Gandalf, a Maia or angelic being. 

Smaug, aka the Worm of Dread would be sent back to Erebor with his tail between his scales after being severely whipped by the Balrog who would follow him there and then open a baitshop for passing tourists on their way to the Long Lake to charter a fishing boat from the Men at Esgaroth. 

"Durin's Bane's Baitshop: Best Bait this side of the Misty Mountains!"


----------



## YayGollum

Are the more specific points supposed to be evidence that the first one makes any sense, or is there some proof hidden elsewhere that being an Ainur type thing automatically makes you more powerful than a dragon?

Looking over these resumes, it seems that Gothmog's most notable accomplishments are all along the lines of striking the final blow while some guy is already surrounded and tired. I am wondering if the beings themselves made these resumes, or if they just hired someone not very flattering to do them.  Whether you think of Glaurung as a mere battering ram or no, is there evidence that he couldn't just easily batter Gothmog to death? I don't see him as merely a battering ram, though. Most battering rams have only one form of attack and must be carried around by those with brains. Glaurung had more forms of attack (including the super impressive and far more refined than a balrog's evil power to mess with people's brains) than Gothmog and I would guess that he was smarter, mostly because I have read nothing of Gothmog's personality. Did Tolkien ever write anything to even suggest Gothmog's level of intelligence, besides the fact that he had some high rank (for which there could be all kinds of reasons)? Glaurung killed plenty of formidable opponents, too. It just would have been more tragic if Tolkien had taken the time to tell us each of their names and stories.  

Towards Smaug, that quote tells us little. Sauron could have used a balrog with terrible effect, too. Does it tell us that Smaug was easy to control? No. Actually, he seems to me to be more along the lines of an Ungoliant. Independent. The pathetic balrog hiding out in Moria used to work for Mel, so he probably knew that Sauron was his right hand Ainur type thing. I don't see why reviewing Sauron's resume would stop him from helping the guy out. Smaug had a good thing going by himself, though. He seemed plenty to content to stay where he was, and Sauron wouldn't have been able to force him into helping out. Of course, we have Sauron's vaguely defined ability to draw evil. It is too vaguely defined for me to worry about Smaug falling under its spell. With little information on how intelligent balrogs were, I wouldn't know who would be more likely to be swayed by it.


----------



## Illuin

> by Belegûr
> _Let's have a look at the résumés of the greatest of each of the two species nevertheless_


 

The résumé theory is irrelevant; as I have explained in post #30 (and rather not explain again ). Also, the fact that Smaug isn’t a Maia and the Balrog is has no bearing in a battle. A Balrog (Maia) can be slain (physically) just as easily as an Elf, Dwarf, Man etc. (as many were). 

PS - Ancalagon was the greatest of the Dragons; Glaurung was simply the first .


----------



## chrysophalax

Ulairi...fresh returned and disrespecting Dragons already? Unwise, old friend, unwise.

Your references to Glaurung and Gothmog aside, let us consider Smaug and his death. Had his "jeweled waistcoat" been complete, I fear Bard would have gotten the roasting he so richly deserved. Alas, in his pride, he failed to assure his invincibility before flying to the attack.

Smaug was the perfect killing machine, as Gandalf was well aware, curse him. Wings, fangs, claws, thick armour, intelligence far superior to all but the divinely wise and endowed with magick, it took a conspiracy to slay him. The slaying of a Balrog cold be accomplished by one person, be he mortal or otherwise.

Had he lived and fought such a battle with a Balrog, the advantage of flight alone would have ensured his victory, as his manueverability would have been excellent. Combine that with flame-throwing and said Balrog is no more!


----------



## Úlairi

Illuin said:


> You have to look at the opponents for what they are, and the abilities they have. *The fact that a Balrog is a Maia and a Dragon is not has nothing to do with the battle; it’s only relevant in the afterlife, when the battle is over*.


 
Not necessarily, a snake will always be victorious over a mouse.



> _*The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #144: To Naomi Mitchison*_
> 
> The _Balrogs_, of whom the whips were the chief weapons, were primeval spirits of destroying fire, *chief servants of the primeval Dark Power of the First Age*.


 
In any ancient military construct the strongest soldiers were always the leaders.



> *The Silmarillion - Of the Coming of the Elves and the Captivity of Melkor*
> 
> ...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. *And in that dark time Melkor bred many other monsters of divers shapes and kinds that long troubled the world*...


 
The "other monsters of divers shapes" would likely include dragons. The following passage is of enormous interest to me for various reasons:



> *The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #153: To Peter Hastings (draft)*
> 
> But if they 'fell', as the Diabolus Morgoth did, and started making things 'for himself, to be their Lord', these would then 'be' ... real physical realities in the physical world ... But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; *and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation'*. I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them.


 
Here Tolkien is discussing the quintessential concept to most myth and fantasy based on religious premise that created creatures cannot themselves create, they can only twist and mar that which already is in existence. He concedes that even if Morgoth were capable of 'making' things, they could never match the power of the Valar through delegation (delegation in this context meaning the passing of power or will from one being to another which Tolkien in another letter explains is inherent in myth - Sauron's power passed into the Ring and Morgoth did the same through his Ring - Arda). I am and never will be JRR Tolkien, but I firmly believe that if I ever got the opportunity to ask him this question I know what the answer would be. If we substitute Valar for Maia or possibly Ainur in the above quote then the dragons could never match the power of the Ainur (or Maia). I know that's speculative, but I believe what Tolkien in this passage is fundamentally driving at is the impregnable concept that sub-creation cannot create and thus cannot match that which already is; and you'll see exactly why below. Fëanor's Silmarils were works of art but were simply imitations of light of the Two Trees. The Two Trees did not 'create' their own light but generated the light already present in the world after the Flame Imperishable was kindled in the Void:



> *The Silmarillion - Of the Beginning of Days*
> 
> In that guarded land the Valar gathered a great store of light...


 
_Myths Transformed_ sheds even greater light on the subject aforementioned.



> *The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: VIII*
> 
> Melkor corrupted many spirits - some great, as Sauron, or less so, as Balrogs. The least could have been primitive (and much more powerful and perilous) Orcs; *but by practising when embodied procreation they would (cf. Melian) [become] more and more earthbound, unable to return to spirit-state (even demon-form), until released by death (killing) , and they would dwindle in force*.


 
Here Tolkien acknowledges that through perpetuation of physical form, the "corrupted Maia" eventually became earthbound to the point that they could not exercise the greatness of their power, which includes even a demon-form: *a form which the Balrogs constantly possessed*. Subtextually Tolkien evinces that even a demonized form is greater than the physical form possessed by dragons.



> *The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: X*
> 
> For Morgoth had many servants, *the oldest and most potent of whom were immortal, belonging indeed in their beginning to the Maiar;* and these evil spirits like their Master could take on visible forms.


 
And there you have it: Maiar are crucial to the discussion as they are greater in being than artificial sub-creations such as Orcs and Dragons. Thus Balrogs are more powerful than Dragons; but I am not going to leave it at that, oh no... 



> *The Silmarillion - Of the Return of the Noldor*
> 
> He was yet young and scarce half-grown, *for long and slow is the life of the dragons*.


 
Dragons conversely, were mortal creatures and thus of lesser potency (or power - they have the same meaning). Even the Quenya form of Balrog - _Valarauko_ - means 'Demon of Might'. Another salient point is that Balrogs didn't appear to re-produce and thus did not confine themselves to physical forms. In determining the number of Balrogs left, Christopher Tolkien notes that this note of JRRT's was discarded and the number of Balrogs was therefore quite small:



> *The History of Middle-earth XI: The War of the Jewels - The Grey Annals 230*
> 
> *The Balrogs were still at this time conceived to exist in large numbers*... '[Melkor] sent forth on a suddent a *host of balrogs*' - at which point my father noted on the typescript of AAm: 'There should *not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed*'...


 
From CT's notes it appears that Tolkien changed his mind and considered that only 3 or 7 at most existed. I understand the fault in that logic, but it is irrefutable that he considered the number to be far smaller as he developed _The Silmarillion_. 

Thus this argument:



Illuin said:


> Fire Resistant: Smaug-Yes / Balrog-Yes
> 
> Ability to Fly: Smaug-Yes / Balrog-No
> 
> Projectile Flames: Smaug-Yes / Balrog-No[...]
> 
> [...]Well, it’s obvious the Balrog has a substantial disadvantage. Also, why did Morgoth wait so long to attack during the Siege of Angband? Couldn’t he have just sent Gothmog out there to break the siege? Probably, but he wasn’t confident with that strategy. He instead wanted to be sure he was going to have the victory; so he patiently waited for his deadliest weapon to mature; Glaurung! And it worked; the Battle of Sudden Flame was devastating
> 
> . And personally, I think Smaug would have no problem taking out Glaurung if circumstances arose.
> 
> So, do I think a Balrog could take Smaug?....not a chance in hell.


 
Becomes irrelevant. The Balrogs were simply smaller in number than the dragons, they were however, corrupted and immortal Maiar, the "most potent" and "chief servants" of Morgoth Bauglir, whereas dragons, including Glaurung and as...



Illuin said:


> Ancalagon was the greatest of the Dragons; Glaurung was simply the first...


 
...they are nought but cheap imitations of created beings twisted and marred by Morgoth and consequently "dwindled in force". Despite Smaug being the last of the great dragons, he was still part of the brood and therefore less in potency, might and power, than that of the lowliest Balrog.

As for Ancalagon being the greatest Illuin, you are absolutely correct; but Ancalagon's achievements were far outshadowed by that of his ancestor Glaurung and therefore it is my own personal contention that Glaurung remains the first and the greatest of all dragons, which is another topic of discussion.



YayGollum said:


> Towards Smaug, that quote tells us little. Sauron could have used a balrog with terrible effect, too. Does it tell us that Smaug was easy to control? No. Actually, he seems to me to be more along the lines of an Ungoliant. Independent. The pathetic balrog hiding out in Moria used to work for Mel, so he probably knew that Sauron was his right hand Ainur type thing. I don't see why reviewing Sauron's resume would stop him from helping the guy out. Smaug had a good thing going by himself, though. He seemed plenty to content to stay where he was, and Sauron wouldn't have been able to force him into helping out. Of course, we have Sauron's vaguely defined ability to draw evil. It is too vaguely defined for me to worry about Smaug falling under its spell. With little information on how intelligent balrogs were, I wouldn't know who would be more likely to be swayed by it.


 
True but nowhere does Tolkien express that point of view, and Gandalf potentially concludes that Smaug as an agent of Sauron may be a certainty:



> *Unfinished Tales - The Quest of Erebor*
> 
> Often I said to myself: "I must find some means of dealing with Smaug... *We must disturb Sauron's plans*. I must make the Council see that."


 
If Olórin considered that a possibility and used the quest for the Arkenstone as an ulterior motive to overcome Smaug, then I would indeed infer there was a strong possibility that Smaug would be recruited into Sauron's service.


----------



## Úlairi

chrysophalax said:


> Ulairi...fresh returned and disrespecting Dragons already? Unwise, old friend, unwise.


 
chrysophalax, how very nice to hear from you after all this time. What a pleasure it is hear from you again. I made a statement earlier that TTF has become another Moria, but even so, I'm glad you're still here to revitalise our Khazad-dûm to its former splendour and glory.



chrysophalax said:


> Your references to Glaurung and Gothmog aside...


 
Yes, I acknowledge it was a contrived and slightly constipated effort, but I am, as with you and other members of TTF, becoming slowly re-acquainted with a dear old friend: _The Silmarillion_. I haven't touched a Tolkien novel in about six years.



chrysophalax said:


> ...let us consider Smaug and his death. Had his "jeweled waistcoat" been complete, I fear Bard would have gotten the roasting he so richly deserved. Alas, in his pride, he failed to assure his invincibility before flying to the attack.


 
And Illuin made a similar point in his post. However, another (clever) member also noted that all dragons seem to be slain by none other than Mortal Men, the lesser forms of creation in comparison to the Elves and the Ainur; which implies to my mind that dragons also, must therefore be lesser than the Immortals, and if you see my post above Tolkien certainly agrees with me as well.



chrysophalax said:


> Smaug was the perfect killing machine, as Gandalf was well aware, curse him. Wings, fangs, claws, thick armour, intelligence far superior to all but the divinely wise and endowed with magick, it took a conspiracy to slay him. The slaying of a Balrog cold be accomplished by one person, be he mortal or otherwise.


 
Yes, yes... he is a veritable 007 flashing his Walter PPK and that winning smile that Balrogs can do nought but swoon amorously. However, there were no Balrogs slain by men (to my knowledge and I am open to correction - but be careful, I am still Úlairi and have a notorious temper when corrected  ) and resultantly I just can't agree with you there. The only reference I'm aware of is Húrin who fought off an entire host but was ultimately defeated and then dragged into Angband by Gothmog. 



chrysophalax said:


> Had he lived and fought such a battle with a Balrog, the advantage of flight alone would have ensured his victory, as his manueverability would have been excellent. Combine that with flame-throwing and said Balrog is no more!


 
You seem to forget that Balrogs were demons of fire; I seem to remember something from my repressed childhood about fighting fire with fire...? Hmmmm... 

Nonetheless, I consider _Letters_ and _Myths Transformed_ to be the definitive answer on the matter, regardless of whatever else I may have said or implied.


----------



## YayGollum

It is true that a snake would normally obtain victory over a mouse, but what if the mouse is much smarter than the snake? 

Towards the idea that a creation of Mel's couldn't be stronger than something Eru made, I point out that we don't know where dragons came from. There were all kinds of monsters in Middle Earth, made by who knows at who knows what time. They could have been captured and bred and enhanced by Mel. Or he could have constructed a shell stronger than most other people's bodies, then inserted subordinate Ainur type spirits. No problems.

The bit about the balrog's demon form always being shown is no large deal. It just says that if they used up their power like Mel did, they would lose the ability to change or get out of their clothes. It seems that the balrogs never wore their more conventional clothes and always went around in their demonic ones. Wearing a physical form didn't constantly use up power. This is the first I've heard of the demonic brand of clothing in Tolkien's universe, though. Is there some other quote that tells me that wearing that brand is a constant drain? Mel and Sauron just lost some of their clothes-wearing abilities due to losing too much power by doing crazier things. 

Towards the bit about dragons not being immortal and therefore a race of lesser power, dang. I mean, um, the quote says that they have long and slow lives. Immortal is undeniably long and slow. I win!  Additionally via semantics, one quote says that the oldest and most potent were immortal. It doesn't say oldest and slash or most potent, so the balrogs were merely some of the most potent of his oldest servants, which doesn't mean that they are more powerful than some of his younger servants.

Towards Smaug again, I see no strong possibility that Smaug would have joined up with Sauron. There is certainly any possibility at all, but I see little to be certain about. It would be plenty dangerous if the two teamed up, the evil torturer Gandalf saw any possibility at all, and decided to prevent it. What evidence is there that Sauron was even thinking about recruiting Smaug, besides that, yes, it would have been a good idea? The evil torturer Gandalf thinking that Sauron planned on it could just be a crazy inference of his, and helping Dwarves out is always a good thing. Either way, the surmization that Sauron could recruit Smaug doesn't really help much in the argument that Smaug couldn't beat a balrog in a fight.

And towards your separate post, your evidence that dragons are weaker than balrogs is that dragons have been killed by humans, and balrogs haven't? You think that a balrog couldn't be killed by a human just because there has been no documentation of such a thing? But when others did it, they employed things like swords, which humans also have the ability to employ. Balrogs seem to go down about as easily as most. Dragons, as I already typed, require a bit more thought, luck, or magical boats and blinding headgear.


----------



## chrysophalax

Much of the above post seems to me to be neither here nor there to the question, "Could Smaug (a specific Dragon) defeat a Balrog in a fight?"

Although as an interesting aside, are we then to draw the conclusion that dwarves have no souls?

Lost Tales Part II, p.179 _"the number of Balrogs that perished was a marvel and a dread to the hosts of Melko, for ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men."_. This refers to a version in which Tuor slew 5 Balrogs, so your assertion that only elves or something greater can kill them doesn't hold up.


----------



## Úlairi

YayGollum said:


> It is true that a snake would normally obtain victory over a mouse, but what if the mouse is much smarter than the snake?





YayGollum said:


> Towards the idea that a creation of Mel's couldn't be stronger than something Eru made, I point out that we don't know where dragons came from. There were all kinds of monsters in Middle Earth, made by who knows at who knows what time. They could have been captured and bred and enhanced by Mel. Or he could have constructed a shell stronger than most other people's bodies, then inserted subordinate Ainur type spirits. No problems.




Yes, but Tolkien irrefutably stated that any creation of Melkor's was automatically an imitation; the sub-creator cannot create; only change, and that change is usually evil (there is a quote for this if you want it).




YayGollum said:


> The bit about the balrog's demon form always being shown is no large deal. It just says that if they used up their power like Mel did, they would lose the ability to change or get out of their clothes. It seems that the balrogs never wore their more conventional clothes and always went around in their demonic ones. Wearing a physical form didn't constantly use up power. This is the first I've heard of the demonic brand of clothing in Tolkien's universe, though. Is there some other quote that tells me that wearing that brand is a constant drain? Mel and Sauron just lost some of their clothes-wearing abilities due to losing too much power by doing crazier things.


 
Grrr, keep it calm Úlairi. Need to feng shui this statement... 

That demon form was simple a visible hue that was inherent to all Ainur, and it did not diminish their power. Power diminished only when is was expended into physical objects. DO NOT think of Balrogs as expressly physical creatures; they are not. Thus the Balrog Label is just like being naked; but in a scary way. Hmmm, interesting. 




YayGollum said:


> Towards the bit about dragons not being immortal and therefore a race of lesser power, dang. I mean, um, the quote says that they have long and slow lives. Immortal is undeniably long and slow. I win!  Additionally via semantics, one quote says that the oldest and most potent were immortal. It doesn't say oldest and slash or most potent, so the balrogs were merely some of the most potent of his oldest servants, which doesn't mean that they are more powerful than some of his younger servants.


 
This bit shows a good level of intellect Yay, but Immortal is permanent, the Elves become weary but they do not perish. Dragons do and thus become mortal. There is unambiguously a distinction there; which Tolkien evinces in _Myths Transformed_ also.




YayGollum said:


> Towards Smaug again, I see no strong possibility that Smaug would have joined up with Sauron. There is certainly any possibility at all, but I see little to be certain about. It would be plenty dangerous if the two teamed up, the evil torturer Gandalf saw any possibility at all, and decided to prevent it. What evidence is there that Sauron was even thinking about recruiting Smaug, besides that, yes, it would have been a good idea? The evil torturer Gandalf thinking that Sauron planned on it could just be a crazy inference of his, and helping Dwarves out is always a good thing. Either way, the surmization that Sauron could recruit Smaug doesn't really help much in the argument that Smaug couldn't beat a balrog in a fight.


 
You're right, but in a completely wrong way. You're speculating without evidence; I provided evidence that Gandalf considered it a distinct possibility and then speculated that Smaug may be seduced by Sauron. If you're going to make that point; you should provide evidence. I would be far more convinced you were going to kill me if your gun was actually loaded. 




YayGollum said:


> And towards your separate post, your evidence that dragons are weaker than balrogs is that dragons have been killed by humans, and balrogs haven't? You think that a balrog couldn't be killed by a human just because there has been no documentation of such a thing? But when others did it, they employed things like swords, which humans also have the ability to employ. Balrogs seem to go down about as easily as most. Dragons, as I already typed, require a bit more thought, luck, or magical boats and blinding headgear.


 
Yes, but here's a nice little bit of delectably bite-sized facts:




> *The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - The Bridge of Khazad-dûm*





> 'Fly! *This is a foe beyond any of you*. I must hold the narrow way. Fly!'




Mithrandir supposed that none, and especially, not even Aragorn or Legolas could overcome the Balrog. Aragorn, the heir of Elendil and Isildur, and Legolas, a Prince of Elves? Perhaps we should get Gollum to tackle the Balrog next time; the next time he says "My precious" it'll be through a feeding tube.


----------



## Úlairi

chrysophalax said:


> Much of the above post seems to me to be neither here nor there to the question, "Could Smaug (a specific Dragon) defeat a Balrog in a fight?"


 
I suggest you re-read the post then chrysophalax, I thought I did a decent job. Here's the short version:

Immortal > Mortal 
∴ Maiar > Physical imitated creation due to sub-creator's inability to create
∴ Balrogs > Dragons
Smaug = Dragon
Balrog = {Balrogs}
∴ Balrog > Smaug

_Quod Erat Demonstratum_.  Here's the quote again:




> *The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: X*





> For Morgoth had many servants, *the oldest and most potent of whom were immortal, belonging indeed in their beginning to the Maiar;* and these evil spirits like their Master could take on visible forms.




IMHO this quote is nitroglycerin; glyceryl trinitrate; dynamite without sawdust - so handle with care. It's DYNOMIGHT! 

*po⋅tent*
[*poht*-nt]

*–adjective *
powerful; mighty: _a potent fighting force_.

Thus being more potent is being more powerful.




chrysophalax said:


> Although as an interesting aside, are we then to draw the conclusion that dwarves have no souls?


 
Come now, mighty chrysophalax; you're just attempting to stir up debate here.




> *The Silmarillion: Of Aulë and Yavanna*





> Why dost thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and authority? For thou has from me as a gift *thy own being only, and no* *more, and therefore the creatures of thy hand and mind can live only by that being, moving when thou thinkest to move them, and if thy thought be elsewhere, standing idle*. ... Then Aulë took up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves; and he wept ... and the Dwarves shrank from the hammer and were afraid, and they bowed down their heads and begged for mercy. And the voice of Ilúvatar said to Aulë: '*Thy offer I accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of thy will*.'




Damn Tolkien's beautiful. So yes, the Dwarves had souls given to them by Ilúvatar.




chrysophalax said:


> Lost Tales Part II, p.179 _"the number of Balrogs that perished was a marvel and a dread to the hosts of Melko, for ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men."_. This refers to a version in which Tuor slew 5 Balrogs, so your assertion that only elves or something greater can kill them doesn't hold up.


 
A cautionary tale chrysophalax which even yourself acknowledged, this wasn't the final conclusive version of _The Fall of Gondolin_ which was published in _The Silmarillion_. This "version" underwent heavy revision and by JRRT as is now the version you see in _The Silmarillion_. Unfortunately, Tuor did not such thing in the _final version_. This version is one where Gnomes are servants of Melkor!!!Here's another of those delectable bite-sized fun facts in reference to that deplorable piece of "evidence":




> *The History of Middle-earth II: The Book of Lost Tales - Volume II - The Fall of Gondolin (p. 212 of my copy)*





> The early conception of Balrogs make them less terrible, *and certainly more destructible, than they afterwards became: they existed in 'hundreds' ... and were slain by Tuor and the Gondothlim in large numbers: thus five fell before Tuor's great axe Dramborleg, three before Ecthelion's sword, and two score were slain by the warriors of the king's house.*




Now there's an eye-opener!


----------



## YayGollum

Ack! You're fairly certain that you know what you're doing with the gun, but I only got grazed that one time!  I have a loaded gun, too, but I prefer talking people out of their craziness. I could totally bring up all kinds of quotes, too, but I find it distasteful. Coming over here and trying to shoot me into submission? We've both got quotes. We both know our way around them. My way of winning is less bloody. No? A win only counts if Tolkien agrees with me? Nah. I disagree with that guy all the time. 

Anyways, I figure that dragons only might count as a creation of Mel's. If they are something along the lines of what I mentioned (monsters enhanced or constructs injected with spirits), then they aren't the kind of creation that your quote seems to be talking about. They're made of stuff that other people made and given steroids and a new race name. 

Towards the apparently as well as uniquely balrog brand of birthday suit, I am unconvinced. They sound fairly physical, to myself. Fire that I don't remember being described as especially different from the regular brand, smoke, and steel claws. Have they turned their usual as well as invisible spirit forms inside out? Sounds like another form of clothing, to myself. Otherwise, how could they be killed by regular old swords? Clothed, unclothed, inside out, or whatever else they're supposed to be, I see no evidence that staying in such a form is somehow impressive beyond its novelty.

Towards immortality, I still don't see that dragons aren't, since Tolkien only wrote that their lives were long and slow, which immortality is. Could not elves be said to have long and slow lives? Was there a dragon that died of old age? I don't remember.

Towards Smaug's possible recruitment, besides the facts that we can't compare Smaug's resistance to Sauron's entreaties versus the average balrog's anyway, we don't know how powerful Sauron's creepy persuasion powers could be, and we only have the evil torturer Gandalf's crazy opinion to go on, I already came up with reasons for why Smaug wouldn't listen to Sauron. You want me to type out quotes from that The Hobbit book as evidence of Smaug's character? But I have already assumed that we've both read that book, so why bother? Smaug was independent. He displayed no interest in obtaining allies. He seemed quite content with sticking around his hoard. Also, Sauron had been hiding out in Mirkwood for a while, and I have read of zero attempts to contact Smaug. He had plenty of time, and the place would have been easy to get to. I won't provide a picture of a map because I believe that we both know the geography. See? Gun is loaded, but I see no need to pull the trigger. Civilized?

Towards your, I would type, passable as well as bite-sized quote, the evil torturer Gandalf is a total drama queen, as everyone knows.  He knew that balrogs were plenty dangerous, and he only really knew how great the evil Aragorn was. Compared to the balrog slayers of the First Age, I would doubt that any of those guys could handle it, either. Also, who is to type that the evil torturer Gandalf was unaware of a decent chance at coming back to life? His brain wasn't entirely settled when he came back and explained himself, anyway. 

Towards the hero Gollum saving the day versus a balrog, I don't doubt that he could have handled it, if he had been any good with weapons. He was more of the honest as well as hand to hand type of fighter, though, so a balrog isn't really his fight. If the thing had his security blanket, though, he certainly wouldn't have run off like everyone else.

My short version:

Immortal = Mortal, since no matter how powerful you're supposed to be, if you can be gutted with a sword and somebody smarter than you comes along, you're just as dead

Dragons > balrogs, due to more intelligence, more weapons at their disposal, more armour, and more strength


----------



## chrysophalax

"The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #153: To Peter Hastings (draft)

But if they 'fell', as the Diabolus Morgoth did, and started making things 'for himself, to be their Lord', these would then 'be' ... real physical realities in the physical world ... But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation'. I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. 

Here Tolkien is discussing the quintessential concept to most myth and fantasy based on religious premise that created creatures cannot themselves create, they can only twist and mar that which already is in existence. He concedes that even if Morgoth were capable of 'making' things, they could never match the power of the Valar through delegation (delegation in this context meaning the passing of power or will from one being to another which Tolkien in another letter explains is inherent in myth - Sauron's power passed into the Ring and Morgoth did the same through his Ring - Arda). I am and never will be JRR Tolkien, but I firmly believe that if I ever got the opportunity to ask him this question I know what the answer would be. If we substitute Valar for Maia or possibly Ainur in the above quote then the dragons could never match the power of the Ainur (or Maia). I know that's speculative, but I believe what Tolkien in this passage is fundamentally driving at is the impregnable concept that sub-creation cannot create and thus cannot match that which already is; and you'll see exactly why below. Fëanor's Silmarils were works of art but were simply imitations of light of the Two Trees. The Two Trees did not 'create' their own light but generated the light already present in the world after the Flame Imperishable was kindled in the Void:

This is a quote from Post # 38. Aule was, I believe on the same level as Melkor, so why then would Aule be able to create and instill a soul into said creation if Melkor could not? Again, if you bring up a point that has little to do directly with Smaug or balrogs, expect to be challenged!

Also, thank you for the definition of the word "potent". I'm sure I would never have understood it on my own.

The point I wish to reinforce here is the intelligence of Dragons. Not only can they reason, but then are also capable of wielding magick, in much the same way Saruman did. A highly intelligent animal, which the disposition of a rabid tyrannosaurus which, incidently, could fly is a terrifying proposition at the best of times. What would Sauron have had to offer said beastie in order to recruit him? He already had a beautiful dwarven horde and a lovely cavern, what else would he need? A lifetime supply of villagers would've been dandy, but hardly enough to lure him from his lair. He was far too sly and suspicious for that.

In the end, it's been established both Smaug and any balrog could be killed and indeed, were killed by something other than each other. What this discussion amounts to is: who had the greater "fire power" between the two? My bet would be on Smaug because of his intelligence primarily. Balrogs overall seem to have been only soldiers, at best. Granted they were leaders, but over what? Orcs, werewolves? Pffft... Plus, do they actively seek out confrontation unless ordered to, or awakened from whatever dark pit they were hiding in? Not that I know of.

Smaug, on the other hand, saw something he wanted, swooped in and grabbed it, like all dragons...aggression and death personified.


----------



## Úlairi

YayGollum said:


> Ack! You're fairly certain that you know what you're doing with the gun, but I only got grazed that one time!  I have a loaded gun, too, but I prefer talking people out of their craziness. I could totally bring up all kinds of quotes, too, but I find it distasteful. Coming over here and trying to shoot me into submission? We've both got quotes. We both know our way around them. My way of winning is less bloody. No? A win only counts if Tolkien agrees with me? Nah. I disagree with that guy all the time.


 
You've got quotes??? I highly doubt that Yay, wanna know why? If there were any quotes about dragons being more powerful than Balrogs; I would have found them by now as I spent three hours last night going through a myriad of Tolkien's works looking for that very thing. If I had found one, I would have posted it! The next time Gollum rolls his eyes, the Balrog's going to tear them out of his skull! 



YayGollum said:


> Anyways, I figure that dragons only might count as a creation of Mel's. If they are something along the lines of what I mentioned (monsters enhanced or constructs injected with spirits), then they aren't the kind of creation that your quote seems to be talking about. They're made of stuff that other people made and given steroids and a new race name.


 
The dragons may have been Maiar *INITIALLY *or have been 'injected' with lower spirits. Their descendants however, would not have been. Here's another one of those dastardly quotes:



> *The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: Text VIII*
> 
> But again - would Eru provide fëar for *such creatures*? For the Eagles etc. perhaps. But not for Orcs. ...
> 
> ... They had little or no _will_ when not actually 'attended to' by the mind of Sauron.


 
Tolkien, as aforementioned with Aulë and his "sub-creation" of the Naugrim, refers to "sub-created" beings being incapable of true volition without the complete direction of their "sub-creator". These creatures would have no fëar due to procreation:



> *The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: VIII*
> 
> Melkor corrupted many spirits - some great, as Sauron, or less so, as Balrogs. The least could have been primitive (and much more powerful and perilous) Orcs; *but by practising when embodied procreation they would (cf. Melian) [become] more and more earthbound, unable to return to spirit-state (even demon-form), until released by death (killing) , and they would dwindle in force*.


 
And the original Maiar themselves would "dwindle in force"!!! Need any more be said??? 



YayGollum said:


> Towards the apparently as well as uniquely balrog brand of birthday suit, I am unconvinced. They sound fairly physical, to myself. Fire that I don't remember being described as especially different from the regular brand, smoke, and steel claws. Have they turned their usual as well as invisible spirit forms inside out? Sounds like another form of clothing, to myself. Otherwise, how could they be killed by regular old swords? Clothed, unclothed, inside out, or whatever else they're supposed to be, I see no evidence that staying in such a form is somehow impressive beyond its novelty.


 
This bit I'm impressed with. The Balrog arguably must have taken some physical form; you're absolutely right... but only to an extent.



> *The Silmarillion: Ainulindalë*
> 
> Now the Valar took to themselves shape and hue; and because they were drawn into the World by love of the Children of Ilúvatar, for whom they hoped, they took shape after that manner which they had beheld in the Vision of Ilúvatar, save only in majesty and splendour. Moreover their shape comes of their knowledge of the visible World, rather than the World itself; *and they need it not, save only as we use raiment, and yet we may be naked and suffer no loss of our being*.


 
Balrogs raiment or hue was their demon-form and they thus suffered no loss to their being with only one exception; Morgoth expended large quantities of his being in their subjugation and their wills were consequently dominated by his own (I can provide a quote for this if you want it). It was through procreation (and do not forget that although being a Great Dragon; Smaug was still of the brood of Glaurung) that the process of their potency began to dwindle. Essentially this entails their 'weakening' which explains why Smaug was the last of the 'Great Dragons' implying that there were dragons afterward, but none of the same potency or stature and my personal favourite: Shelob - last child of Ungoliant; who, unlike her mother; was incapable of consuming light which would have been frightfully helpful in her pursuit of Frodo through Cirith Ungol. 



YayGollum said:


> Towards immortality, I still don't see that dragons aren't, since Tolkien only wrote that their lives were long and slow, which immortality is. Could not elves be said to have long and slow lives? Was there a dragon that died of old age? I don't remember.


 
I'll repeat myself, immortality is not long; it is infinite - a long life *is NOT* an immortal one.



YayGollum said:


> Towards Smaug's possible recruitment, besides the facts that we can't compare Smaug's resistance to Sauron's entreaties versus the average balrog's anyway, we don't know how powerful Sauron's creepy persuasion powers could be, and we only have the evil torturer Gandalf's crazy opinion to go on...


 
LOL. You're one crazy, funny guy Yay... 



YayGollum said:


> I already came up with reasons for why Smaug wouldn't listen to Sauron. You want me to type out quotes from that The Hobbit book as evidence of Smaug's character? But I have already assumed that we've both read that book, so why bother? Smaug was independent. He displayed no interest in obtaining allies. He seemed quite content with sticking around his hoard. Also, Sauron had been hiding out in Mirkwood for a while, and I have read of zero attempts to contact Smaug. He had plenty of time, and the place would have been easy to get to. I won't provide a picture of a map because I believe that we both know the geography. See? Gun is loaded, but I see no need to pull the trigger. Civilized?


 
Evidence of Smaug's character. Smaug coveted gold like a woman looking at a 30 or 40 carat diamond - she'll do anything for it; even marry you! Sauron would only have to bribe Smaug with untold riches and Smaug would cry out: "Oh Sauron, you've made me the happiest girl in the world!" (jokes people, just jokes - women are awesome). I want you to pull the trigger, go get me some quotes and I'll be far more inclined to listen to a more informed opinion. Are you a Uni student? Any claim or point made must be backed up with evidence. My Smaug statement above; though not backed up with evidence is inherently obvious; but I'll play along as well if you want me to. I'm just sick of typing the damn things out!!!



YayGollum said:


> Towards your, I would type, passable as well as bite-sized quote, the evil torturer Gandalf is a total drama queen, as everyone knows.  He kinew that balrogs were plenty dangerous, and he only really knew how great the evil Aragorn was. Compared to the balrog slayers of the First Age, I would doubt that any of those guys could handle it, either. Also, who is to type that the evil torturer Gandalf was unaware of a decent chance at coming back to life? His brain wasn't entirely settled when he came back and explained himself, anyway.


 
We had chrysophalax coming out with all guns blazing with a faulty quote from _The Book of Lost Tales: Volume II_ about Tuor; a man who accomplished very little in comparison to Aragorn in my personal opinion. We have some big hostility here for the Wizard who said this about your beloved:



> *The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - The Shadow of the Past*
> 
> 'What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!'
> 'Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need.' ...
> ...'He deserves death.'
> 'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.'


 


YayGollum said:


> Towards the hero Gollum saving the day versus a balrog, I don't doubt that he could have handled it, if he had been any good with weapons. He was more of the honest as well as hand to hand type of fighter, though, so a balrog isn't really his fight. If the thing had his security blanket, though, he certainly wouldn't have run off like everyone else.
> 
> My short version:
> 
> Immortal = Mortal, since no matter how powerful you're supposed to be, if you can be gutted with a sword and somebody smarter than you comes along, you're just as dead
> 
> Dragons > balrogs, due to more intelligence, more weapons at their disposal, more armour, and more strength


 
Well, from what I've written above based on the writings of Tolkien, I can't make that conclusion as it is contrary and contradictory to what Tolkien intended. The next time Gollum screamed "My precious!" it would sound something like "Mmmm prshush".


----------



## Alcuin

Aulë did not create creatures with souls, but automatons. Only when Eru reprimanded him, and Aulë, weeping, prepared to destroy them, did the Fathers of the Dwarves recoil in terror: Eru granted them souls in recognition of repentance and atonement on the part of Aulë.

No Vala or Maia could create souls: only Eru could do that.

Balrogs were _Umaiar_ – dark Maiar – literally, demons, fallen angelic powers in rebellion against their Maker. Sauron was, quite literally, an Umaia. What you are asking is whether a dragon, a creature of Arda, was greater or lesser in power than one of the incarnate fallen angelic powers.

If, as might have been the case, one of the Umaiar inhabited the body of a dragon, as seemed to have been the case with Carcharoth and with Hound-Sauron, or if one of them took the form of a dragon (as it was with the Maia, Huan the Hound; or even with the Man, as he seemed, Gandalf), then that would seem to me another situation entirely. 

As was pointed out in the beginning of the thread, Maiar might be vanquished by Incarnates: Sauron was vanquished by Elendil and Gil-galad, Gothmog by Ecthelion, and another balrog by Glorfindel; but the Incarnates could also vanquish dragons. Logically, then, Incarnates were potentially the most powerful of the three kinds: Maiar, dragons, and Elves & Men. Maiar were of differing power, some greater and some lesser, as were the Valar. But posing the question, “If Jack can beat Bob, and Jack can beat Bill, is Bob stronger or is Bill?” is not a question that can be answered based upon that information. Something else has to be considered.

I suggest that you restrict the argument to whether Durin’s Bane might have been vanquished by Smaug. Bear in mind that Durin’s Bane might have found a good blast of dragon fire refreshing. And of course, if he also had _wings _- and might even _fly _- that would take away another of Smaug’s advantages...-|-​_Added:_



Belegûr said:


> Morgoth expended large quantities of his being in their subjugation and their wills were consequently dominated by his own (I can provide a quote for this if you want it).


Yes, please. I am unfortunately severely time-limited at this point in life, and that would be helpful. Thanks. (I think we cross-posted. The salt mines of Núrnen beckon; I can hear the orc-drivers cracking their whips even as I type.)


----------



## Úlairi

chrysophalax said:


> This is a quote from Post # 38. Aule was, I believe on the same level as Melkor, so why then would Aule be able to create and instill a soul into said creation if Melkor could not? Again, if you bring up a point that has little to do directly with Smaug or balrogs, expect to be challenged!


 
*AULË NEVER GAVE THE DWARVES SOULS!!! IF YOU'D KINDLY READ POST # 43 AGAIN!!!*



> *The Silmarillion: Of Aulë and Yavanna*
> 
> Why dost thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and authority? For thou has from me as a gift *thy own being only, and no* *more, and therefore the creatures of thy hand and mind can live only by that being, moving when thou thinkest to move them, and if thy thought be elsewhere, standing idle*. ... Then Aulë took up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves; and he wept ... and the Dwarves shrank from the hammer and were afraid, and they bowed down their heads and begged for mercy. And the voice of Ilúvatar said to Aulë: '*Thy offer I accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of thy will*.'


 
Eru "instilled" the souls into the Dwarves, *NOT AULË!!! *Fundamentally, Aulë created the physical beings of the Dwarves, but they were robots; incapable of acting freely of their own volition. Eru gave the Dwarves the souls which is why the flinched when Aulë raised his hammer to smite them. Here another little bite-sized quote from _Myths Transformed_.



> *The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: Text X*
> 
> *Melkor was impotent to produce any living thing, but skilled in the corruption of things that did not proceed from himself, if he could dominate them*. But if he had indeed attempted to *make creatures of his own in imitation of mockery of the Incarnates, he* *would, like Aulë, only have suceeded in producing puppets*: his creatures would have *acted only while the attention of his will was upon them, and they would have shown no reluctance to execute any command of his, even if it were to destroy themselves*.


 
So:
(1) Melkor was impotent (which means he wasn't powerful enough; not that he couldn't get it up) to create living beings.
(2) If he had, like *Aulë*, he would have created puppets; automatons; robots; zombies whatever - creatures incapable of acting freely (non-existential).
(3) As they were zombies they had no will, and thus would have obeyed any command; even if it were suicide.

So, Melkor was incapable of producing living things with souls, as was Aulë. If they did, then these creatures would be bereft of choice, free will, soul, spirit, sentience or conscience.

Hope that clears it up!!! 



chrysophalax said:


> Also, thank you for the definition of the word "potent". I'm sure I would never have understood it on my own.


 
Sorry mate, it justs seems as though the post about the potency of balrogs was completely ignored by both you and Yay. It's... frustrating for no lack whatsoever of another word... 



chrysophalax said:


> The point I wish to reinforce here is the intelligence of Dragons. Not only can they reason, but then are also capable of wielding magick, in much the same way Saruman did. A highly intelligent animal, which the disposition of a rabid tyrannosaurus which, incidently, could fly is a terrifying proposition at the best of times. What would Sauron have had to offer said beastie in order to recruit him? He already had a beautiful dwarven horde and a lovely cavern, what else would he need? A lifetime supply of villagers would've been dandy, but hardly enough to lure him from his lair. He was far too sly and suspicious for that.


 
Sauron: "Gold!"
Smaug: "Where? Where? For the love of Morgoth where???"
Sauron: "Dude, you have a problem..."

Lets not forget that Smaug was a soldier in the army of Morgoth, oft commanded by Sauron in different respects. All Sauron need do is pull a D i c k Cheney and enact the 25th Amendment: Sauron, the VP has become the President! Hail to the chief!



chrysophalax said:


> In the end, it's been established both Smaug and any balrog could be killed and indeed, were killed by something other than each other. What this discussion amounts to is: who had the greater "fire power" between the two? My bet would be on Smaug because of his intelligence primarily. Balrogs overall seem to have been only soldiers, at best. Granted they were leaders, but over what? Orcs, werewolves? Pffft... Plus, do they actively seek out confrontation unless ordered to, or awakened from whatever dark pit they were hiding in? Not that I know of.
> 
> Smaug, on the other hand, saw something he wanted, swooped in and grabbed it, like all dragons...aggression and death personified.


 
My argument is not based on pseudo-fallacious concepts like this one. You'll never determine who had greater "fire-power"; you'll never determine who was more aegile, manouverable or swift. What can be determined, is where these creatures are on a hierarchical construct. 

Again, I will re-iterate:

Balrogs > Dragons
Thus, Balrog > Smaug.


----------



## Úlairi

Ha! I was writing this over a few hours. I go and come back to it and you've beat me to the punch in some respects. Hail and well met, Alcuin!!!



Alcuin said:


> Aulë did not create creatures with souls, but automatons. Only when Eru reprimanded him, and Aulë, weeping, prepared to destroy them, did the Fathers of the Dwarves recoil in terror: Eru granted them souls in recognition of repentance and atonement on the part of Aulë.
> 
> No Vala or Maia could create souls: only Eru could do that.


 
*THANK YOU!!! *dances wildly**



Alcuin said:


> Balrogs were _Umaiar_ – dark Maiar – literally, demons, fallen angelic powers in rebellion against their Maker. Sauron was, quite literally, an Umaia. What you are asking is whether a dragon, a creature of Arda, was greater or lesser in power than one of the incarnate fallen angelic powers.


 
Umaiar, I forgot this term. Well researched Alcuin. Perhaps you could refer me to that...

As for the Dragons, I have no personal doubt whatsoever that Glaurung was a Umaia. I have reservations about Smaug but it appears as though he was; due to this insufferable "intelligence" argument these two seem to perpetuate. 



Alcuin said:


> If, as might have been the case, one of the Umaiar inhabited the body of a dragon, as seemed to have been the case with Carcharoth and with Hound-Sauron, or if one of them took the form of a dragon (as it was with the Maia, Huan the Hound; or even with the Man, as he seemed, Gandalf), then that would seem to me another situation entirely.


 
EXACTLY. The _Istari_ are a magnificent example. Another example somewhere in _Myths Transformed _is that of Melian, who, by giving birth to Lúthien, by procreating, also become more earthbound and thus "dwindled in force". 



Alcuin said:


> As was pointed out in the beginning of the thread, Maiar might be vanquished by Incarnates: Sauron was vanquished by Elendil and Gil-galad, Gothmog by Ecthelion, and another balrog by Glorfindel; but the Incarnates could also vanquish dragons. Logically, then, Incarnates were potentially the most powerful of the three kinds: Maiar, dragons, and Elves & Men. Maiar were of differing power, some greater and some lesser, as were the Valar. But posing the question, “If Jack can beat Bob, and Jack can beat Bill, is Bob stronger or is Bill?” is not a question that can be answered based upon that information. Something else has to be considered.


 
Yes, but the Incarnates never returned to physical form as did Sauron; due to their immortality. My discussion is on the nature of their inherent stature and power. Undeniably Immortals were slain by mortals; but the Sauron case is different in the sense that if it had been any other finger Sauron would've crushed Isildur's head - the inherent flaw there was his dependence on the Ring. The formulaic responses of mine are simple: the more earthbound they become; the easier it is for them to be slain. Gothmog required an Elf, the first of Eru's Children; to be slain. No Balrog has been slain by anything less than an Eldar. Contrarily we see Dragons slain by Mortals throughout the history of Middle-earth. Gandalf also acknowledged that even Aragorn, arguably the greatest of Mortal Men of his time; was incapable of overpowering a Balrog.



Alcuin said:


> I suggest that you restrict the argument to whether Durin’s Bane might have been vanquished by Smaug. Bear in mind that Durin’s Bane might have found a good blast of dragon fire refreshing. And of course, if he also had _wings _- and might even _fly _- that would take away another of Smaug’s advantages...


 
You and I have been on song up until this point. If I can establish that ALL BALROGS ARE GREATER THAN DRAGONS; THUS A BALROG IS GREATER THAN SMAUG. _Quod erat demonstratum_.



Alcuin said:


> -|-​_Added:_
> 
> Yes, please. I am unfortunately severely time-limited at this point in life, and that would be helpful. Thanks. (I think we cross-posted. The salt mines of Núrnen beckon; I can hear the orc-drivers cracking their whips even as I type.)


 
Here's your quote mate:



> *The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: Texts VI, VII & VIII*
> 
> *VI:* But Melkor had already progressed some way towards becoming 'the Morgoth. a tyrant (or central tyranny and will), + his agents'. Only the _total_ contained the old power of the complete Melkor; so that if 'the Morgoth' could be reached or temporarily separated from his agents he was much more nearly controllable and on a power-level with the Valar. ... Both are amazed: Manwë to perceive the _decrease_ in Melkor as a _person_...
> 
> *VII:* Eventually he also squandered his power (of being) in the endeavour to gain control of others. ... Hence his endeavour always to break wills and subordinate them to or absorb them into his own will and being, before destroying their bodies.
> 
> *VIII: It will there be seen that the wills of Orcs and Balrogs etc. are part of Melkor's power 'dispersed'. Their power is one of hate.*


----------



## Illuin

> by Belegûr
> _We had chrysophalax coming out with all guns blazing with a faulty quote from The Book of Lost Tales: Volume II about Tuor_


 

You do realize that most of us have read all of these books a thousand times over; and most of us are very familiar with all of your quotes as well (because; obviously; they are from those same books most of us have been reading for 30 years ). So there is no need to quote the entire works of J.R.R. Tolkien in this silly little thread. Using the scientific method here; you don’t seem to realize the fundamental point here. All of your quotes (and I commend you for your hard work) are not applicable to the question for one reason, and one reason alone: _'there has never been a recorded battle between a Drake and a Balrog'_. You can take all of the _résumés, past battles, Maia or no Maia, mortal or immortal, follow me, follow me not_ references and quote them until you sprout wings; but it’s pointless, because it all comes back to one simple, fundamental fact: "It’s not written"...period. When something isn’t written, speculation and interpretation are all we have. Would this thread even exist there was clear-cut documentation; or an obvious conclusion? Quoting passages won’t work with this question; because there’s nothing to quote. There are no hidden facts to dig up; they don't exist. What’s my point? Use your imagination; have a little fun; and take a guess.


----------



## Úlairi

Illuin said:


> You do realize that most of us have read all of these books a thousand times over; and most of us are very familiar with all of your quotes as well (because; obviously; they are from those same books most of us have been reading for 30 years ).


 
And yet I still read some of the most absurd ideas I've ever seen! Such as Aulë which was posted *again* after the point had been elucidated.



Illuin said:


> So there is no need to quote the entire works of J.R.R. Tolkien in this silly little thread.


 
What makes this thread so silly? We're discussing something here that JRRT took *very seriously*. He wouldn't have written the essays of _Myths Transformed_ if he did not have similar questions of his own works. I don't care nought one bit for that reference. We've simply taken this discussion to a greater level; which is *usually* a mission statement for a place like this...



Illuin said:


> Using the scientific method here; you don’t seem to realize the fundamental point here. All of your quotes (and I commend you for your hard work) are not applicable to the question for one reason, and one reason alone: _'there has never been a recorded battle between a Drake and a Balrog'_. You can take all of the _résumés, past battles, Maia or no Maia, mortal or immortal, follow me, follow me not_ references and quote them until you sprout wings; but it’s pointless, because it all comes back to one simple, fundamental fact: "It’s not written"...period.


 
It has been written; I've quoted it incessantly. JRRT always maintained *hierarchical structures* in his myth as he understood something that seems to have evaded you: *is it fundamental to myth and fairy-tale*. Seeing as I quote waaaaay too much, perhaps you should go and find where he says that, as:



Illuin said:


> ...most of us are very familiar with all of your quotes as well (because; obviously; they are from those same books most of us have been reading for 30 years ).


 
I guess Alcuin's excluded from that as he asked me for a quote as well. Fancy that?



Illuin said:


> When something isn’t written, speculation and interpretation are all we have. Would this thread even exist there was clear-cut documentation; or an obvious conclusion? Quoting passages won’t work with this question; because there’s nothing to quote. There are no hidden facts to dig up; they don't exist. What’s my point? Use your imagination; have a little fun; and take a guess.


 
Unlike some people, I prefer to take an e_ducated_ guess; my apologies if that's to your personal distaste.


----------



## chrysophalax

As much as I enjoy a good blood-bath, I think tempers are becoming a bit frayed, so let's just calm down.

Faulty quote? How so? I typed it exactly as I found it. It's hardly my fault it wasn't included in the final work. Suffice it to say, Tolkien at one time intended for Balrogs to be more numerous, less powerful and more easily "slayable", for lack of a better term. I acknowledge the fact that this was _not_ his final opinion, I merely included it to show that, at one point at least, a man could have slain a Balrog.


Alcuin, I appreciate the wishful thinking about the "wings" of Balrogs, but, (and here I'm only going to paraphrase, not quote directly), Dragons deigned to bear Balrogs on their backs into battle, so methinks said wings were not physical. Also, if Durin's Bane had _had_ wings, would he not have used them, instead of falling, a la Wile E. Coyote, into the bowels of the mountain? Just a thought...

Ulairi, no reason to have so thin a skin (it only makes you more potentialy edible!). Illuin is merely encouraging us all to have fun. He doesn't come from the days of Harad, when all debates devolved into carnage and ill-will.

There are many here, like yourself, who know the books like the backs of their hands. And then there are those like myself, who have read some of the books, but have very definite opinions, opinions shaped not only by Tolkien's works, but by the thousands of other books they've read, so never assume that these are not educated opinons!

In short, let's just re-group and continue. 

"I suggest that you restrict the argument to whether Durin’s Bane might have been vanquished by Smaug." I couldn't agree more, Alcuin! That's basically what I've been trying desperately to steer the conversation toward!

While I'm not so sure Smaug was a part of Morgoth's army and thus recruitable again. Dragons always tend to go for the sure thing, not some illusory future promise of reward.

That being said, if he and said Balrog ever met, and had to fight over territory, I still think the dragon would win, simply because the balrog's flames would have no effect on him. Same for the Balrog. It would come down to getting physical and here is where I believe Samug has the advantage. His size, weight and impressive weaponry would pretty much do for Mr. Smoke-and-Mirrors. Granted, Gandalf was a Maia, but from the account he gave Aragorn, it took wearing the Balrog down and then hurling it off the mountain top to kill it's physical body, something I feel quite sure Smaug would also have been able to accomplish.


----------



## Úlairi

chrysophalax said:


> As much as I enjoy a good blood-bath, I think tempers are becoming a bit frayed, so let's just calm down.


 
Noted. I understand where Illuin is coming from; I simply believe he went the wrong way about it. If he had said 'lighten up' I may have been more inclined to agree with him. A personal contention is that these topics should be discussed in the best possible way: with evidence. That's all I'll say about it.



chrysophalax said:


> Faulty quote? How so? I typed it exactly as I found it. It's hardly my fault it wasn't included in the final work. Suffice it to say, Tolkien at one time intended for Balrogs to be more numerous, less powerful and more easily "slayable", for lack of a better term. I acknowledge the fact that this was _not_ his final opinion, I merely included it to show that, at one point at least, a man could have slain a Balrog.


 
Faulty was used for lack of a better word; perhaps outdated may have been better? 



chrysophalax said:


> Alcuin, I appreciate the wishful thinking about the "wings" of Balrogs, but, (and here I'm only going to paraphrase, not quote directly), Dragons deigned to bear Balrogs on their backs into battle, so methinks said wings were not physical. Also, if Durin's Bane had _had_ wings, would he not have used them, instead of falling, a la Wile E. Coyote, into the bowels of the mountain? Just a thought...


 
Lol. You know what's funny about this? *Every time* I get asked if Balrogs could fly I *always* used that argument. I continue it to the point that Durin's Bane would've been a much harder target for Gandalf if he could fly as well.



chrysophalax said:


> Ulairi, no reason to have so thin a skin (it only makes you more potentialy edible!). Illuin is merely encouraging us all to have fun. He doesn't come from the days of Harad, when all debates devolved into carnage and ill-will.


 
Yeah, you have a point there about the Harad days. We were like roosters at a pecking party. If one spot of blood got onto a certain argument, we'd all go apesh*t.



chrysophalax said:


> There are many here, like yourself, who know the books like the backs of their hands. And then there are those like myself, who have read some of the books, but have very definite opinions, opinions shaped not only by Tolkien's works, but by the thousands of other books they've read, so never assume that these are not educated opinons!


 
Me? Know the books back to front? LMAO! Not even close; nay, not even remotely close! I haven't read _Lord of the Rings_ or _The Silmarillion _in six years! In terms of opinions being educated, I can bring myself to believe that anyone has a photographic knowledge of the works of Tolkien. You can say one thing based on something you remember in a certain book somewhere; and be disproven with contrary evidence on the same topic! Tolkien was always changing his mind. I never once purported the belief that Dragons were not Umaiar; that's something I'll never know! 



chrysophalax said:


> "I suggest that you restrict the argument to whether Durin’s Bane might have been vanquished by Smaug." I couldn't agree more, Alcuin! That's basically what I've been trying desperately to steer the conversation toward!


 
I don't understand this point at all. If we can prove that a cat kills a mouse and never vice versa; then we can say that my cat can kill your mouse - except for Sylvester and Speedy Gonzales; and Itchy and Scratchie. Oops, that didn't work...  Whilst I understand the reasoning behind this contention; it is actually easier to construct a substantiated hypothesis on the basis I've elucidated as there is simply more literary evidence on the matter. I just don't like p*ssing in the wind.



chrysophalax said:


> While I'm not so sure Smaug was a part of Morgoth's army and thus recruitable again. Dragons always tend to go for the sure thing, not some illusory future promise of reward.


 
Now that statement certainly needs evidence. I'm sure you'll be able to quote me from your photographic knowledge of Tolkien. I expect a reply within two minutes.  Melkor bred Dragons - essentially he created them. They were contrived within his mind. Smaug was of that innumerable 'brood' that JRRT always refers to. I'm not going to give the quote - Illuin has liberated me!



chrysophalax said:


> That being said, if he and said Balrog ever met, and had to fight over territory, I still think the dragon would win, simply because the balrog's flames would have no effect on him. Same for the Balrog. It would come down to getting physical and here is where I believe Samug has the advantage. His size, weight and impressive weaponry would pretty much do for Mr. Smoke-and-Mirrors.


 
You'll have to direct me to the passage where it gives the physical dimensions of Dragons and Balrogs and this "impressive weaponry" you constantly refer to. There's a quote from the movie _Snatch_ that I always refer to in various contexts; and its a personal joke but this situation simply calls for it (I don't expect you to understand the reference; but kudos if you do )



> "Sorry Vincent, I forgot to get the by-knock-you-lars [binoculars] out!"


 


> Granted, Gandalf was a Maia, but from the account he gave Aragorn, it took wearing the Balrog down and then hurling it off the mountain top to kill it's physical body, something I feel quite sure Smaug would also have been able to accomplish.


 
And I'm quite sure that...



> *The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - The Bridge of Khazad-dûm*
> 
> ...out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming.


 
...could potentially pierce that little soft-spot that Bard's arrow did all to well.


----------



## chrysophalax

Bard had inside information the balrog would not be privy to, therefore it would remain to be seen if the balrog would then have time to find the weak spot on its own.

As to Melkor breeding Dragons, of course he did, but that doesn't mean that every last Dragon still alive during the 3rd Age had been hatched under his watchful eye. I'm quite certain the first Dragons figured out on their own how to make baby dragons!

Regarding why only Smaug and Durins Bane? Easy, because that's what the title of the thread refers to, not; Dragons vs. Balrogs: Who Would Win In a Face-to-Face Battle?. Semantics, possibly, but true nonetheless.


----------



## Illuin

> by Úlairi
> _Unlike some people, I prefer to take an educated guess; my apologies if that's to your personal distaste._


 
Well, I tried, and have done my part; I used the logical approach. Anyone here familiar with the Freudian method?


----------



## YayGollum

Yikes! Lots to respond to! And I don't use quotes to show people what point of the debate I'm referring to! oh well. We'll figure it out. Without quotes, people can still look at the originals when I seem to be responding to them. Much like how I possess the ability to type about things in books without giving quotes. If people think I'm crazy, they can always check on it or take my word for it. They can have fun either way.

Towards the idea of souls not being created by Eru for later generations of Orcs and, presumably, dragons ---> This is one of many points where I disagree with Tolkien. How does it make sense? If they have no souls, they are just robots or animals? Was Mel, and later, Sauron constantly feeding instructions for every little thing into every little Orc and, presumably, dragon? Or did they just give the general instructions of, "Act like you hate the things I hate. Yeah, be really vile. Cause lots of destruction. Don't leave me armyless but always fulfill this quota of self-destruction. You know, 'cuz it makes others fear you."  Okay, so animals makes more sense, but then, check out how intelligent and independent Glaurung and Smaug are. I have no problem with calling Tolkien incorrect, but how's about I bring up the idea that spirits were always volunteering to inhabit new bodies? Mel could capture elf and, presumably, other spirits. Why not insert them where they're needed? And spirits can always pop into inanimate objects, it seems, at least with those dragons.

Towards Smaug being weaker than an (only presumably) original balrog, just because he is an at least second generation dragon ---> Do you have an idea on how powerful the original dragons were versus the average balrog? I, of course, figure that they were lots stronger than balrogs, but I am unsure about exactly how much weaker the next generation would be. Do you have an idea on that? Feanor was plenty powerful for a second generation elf. Eonwe (in some versions) is plenty powerful for a second generation Ainur type thing. Shelob might be able to eat as much light as she wants and could merely have been annoyed by the light and in the mood for hobbit. Smaug was huge and plenty powerful. The average balrog is a lot less huge and of ill-defined power.

Towards Smaug's character ---> I see no need for quotes. You type that it should be obvious to anyone who has read that The Hobbit book that Smaug would eagerly sign up for helping Sauron out with fighting the world for the untrustworthy guy's promise of gold. I type that it should be obvious to anyone who has read that The Hobbit book that he never encountered any situations like that, nor did he display any overly trusting moments. Yes, he was a fan of gold. He fought one mountain of Dwarves and a few humans to get some, then minded his own business until he was bothered. He displayed no ambition for obtaining more gold. He seems more like an offended hermit, to myself, than a greedy, blood-thirsty, and naive pawn. 

Towards this hierarchy versus any other approach thing ---> Has it not been proved plenty of times that the hierarchy means less than the individuals? You have quotes that I've been arguing that don't prove that every balrog has more power than every dragon. Even if they do, the power that the quotes are talking about is another ill-defined thing. We know how Mel spent lots of his. We don't know the rules on spending power or the many ways that it could automatically be in use. Was a balrog faster than lightning and able to lift a continent? I don't know, but it is possible, from what I've read. Not very probable, though. Sauron, more powerful than a balrog, ran away from a big dog. Tolkien hasn't given us Smaug's stats, but I don't see why he couldn't smash Huan with one claw.

Towards what you had to type about poor Smeagol ---> You can't come to the conclusion that poor Smeagol could kill a balrog because you figure it to be contrary as well as contradictory to what Tolkien intended? I don't remember Tolkien writing about intending anything regarding poor Smeagol in a fight with a balrog. Evidence that he could beat a balrog ---> Tolkien is quite complimentary regarding poor Smeagol, at times. He writes that he has a large amount of courage, so I figure that if poor Smeagol wanted to kill a balrog, he wouldn't be affected by its fear ability. He gives plenty examples of the guy's cleverness, strength, and endurance. A balrog can be killed (somehow and nonsensically, to myself) with a sword thrust to the area of fire where a heart would be on a human. Mayhaps they could also be killed via strangulation? Poor Smeagol could endure the fire to accomplish his goal, I figure. I have seen no evidence that balrogs are especially intelligent or observant. Poor Smeagol could easily sneak up on the guy. The only problem with would be his strength versus the balrog's. Tolkien never gives examples on how strong they are. Yes, assumptions could be made, but why not agree with me?  Poor Smeagol killed plenty of Orcs, at the least, so we know that he could take down at least an elf, which I have no problem equating them to.

There might have been some other points in there. Tell me if I forgot to challenge something that anybody thinks is especially important. Also, we should totally invite Harad back. He was another one of my favorites.


----------



## Úlairi

Illuin said:


> Well, I tried, and have done my part; I used the logical approach. Anyone here familiar with the Freudian method?



Logical? Is it really logical to make a comparison between two fantastical creatures based on a description of their characteristics and idiosyncrasies? Or would it be more logical to actually see what the author has to say about which of the two were greater in inherent power? I guess logic really is a relative concept. I think you and Freud would get along pretty well Illuin.



YayGollum said:


> Yikes! Lots to respond to! And I don't use quotes to show people what point of the debate I'm referring to! oh well. We'll figure it out. Without quotes, people can still look at the originals when I seem to be responding to them. Much like how I possess the ability to type about things in books without giving quotes. If people think I'm crazy, they can always check on it or take my word for it. They can have fun either way.



Whilst understood, quotes are evidentiary. If someone makes an inference based on a supposed "quote" they can often make assertions that are completely incorrect without being challenged as most people wouldn't be bothered to look up the quote to determine this. I feel that not quoting actually gives an unfair advantage to the person making the inference.



YayGollum said:


> Towards the idea of souls not being created by Eru for later generations of Orcs and, presumably, dragons ---> This is one of many points where I disagree with Tolkien. How does it make sense? If they have no souls, they are just robots or animals? Was Mel, and later, Sauron constantly feeding instructions for every little thing into every little Orc and, presumably, dragon? Or did they just give the general instructions of, "Act like you hate the things I hate. Yeah, be really vile. Cause lots of destruction. Don't leave me armyless but always fulfill this quota of self-destruction. You know, 'cuz it makes others fear you." Okay, so animals makes more sense, but then, check out how intelligent and independent Glaurung and Smaug are. I have no problem with calling Tolkien incorrect, but how's about I bring up the idea that spirits were always volunteering to inhabit new bodies? Mel could capture elf and, presumably, other spirits. Why not insert them where they're needed? And spirits can always pop into inanimate objects, it seems, at least with those dragons.



For one thing Yay I'm so glad there's still a few people on this forum actually willing to discuss *Tolkien's perspective* instead of their own *unsubstantiated* ones. There are so many threads out there now which some people only desire the opinion of the person without delving any deeper into Tolkien's inferences on the work _he_ created.

Being devoid of a soul in this context would most likely be the utter debasement of these spirits through reproduction to the point that they become animalistic; and ultimately animals in the end. Disagree with Tolkien? Wow, and here I was thinking this was _The Tolkien Forum_?! This place has changed far too dramatically... Where's Grond?  The more I post here the more I miss that big hammer... *a lot*. In terms of the intelligence of Smaug I do not dispute that there _appears_ to be some _*lesser* spirit_ dwelling within him as he is still the last of the *Great* Dragons. It is simply (based on the quotes above) a _diminishing_ of these _spirits_. The Balrogs never lost their _potency_ as they never degraded themselves like Morgoth or his minions. They maintained their pseudo-raiment based on their knowledge of Arda; as is stipulated in _The Silmarillion_. Inserting other spirits? Interesting idea, but you'll have to refer me to the quote.  



YayGollum said:


> Towards Smaug being weaker than an (only presumably) original balrog, just because he is an at least second generation dragon ---> Do you have an idea on how powerful the original dragons were versus the average balrog? I, of course, figure that they were lots stronger than balrogs, but I am unsure about exactly how much weaker the next generation would be. Do you have an idea on that? Feanor was plenty powerful for a second generation elf. Eonwe (in some versions) is plenty powerful for a second generation Ainur type thing. Shelob might be able to eat as much light as she wants and could merely have been annoyed by the light and in the mood for hobbit. Smaug was huge and plenty powerful. The average balrog is a lot less huge and of ill-defined power.



We've been over this *so bloody much* Yay. Despite your disagreeance with Tolkien; *he made them MORE POTENT THAN ANY DRAGON*. Once upon time there were Dragons and Balrogs; and Balrogs were of greater potency than Dragons. The end. That's the damn story. Shelob? Shelob was utterly terrified of light. She did not have the same ability; and of all the Great Descendants she exhibited the most animalistic qualities:



> _The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - Shelob's Lair_
> 
> *They wavered. Doubt came into them as the light approached. One by one they dimmed, and slowly they drew back. No brightness so deadly had ever afflicted them before ... Still it apporached, and the eyes began to quail.*



Sounds a _little_ scared of the light, no?



YayGollum said:


> Towards Smaug's character ---> I see no need for quotes. You type that it should be obvious to anyone who has read that The Hobbit book that Smaug would eagerly sign up for helping Sauron out with fighting the world for the untrustworthy guy's promise of gold. I type that it should be obvious to anyone who has read that The Hobbit book that he never encountered any situations like that, nor did he display any overly trusting moments. Yes, he was a fan of gold. He fought one mountain of Dwarves and a few humans to get some, then minded his own business until he was bothered. He displayed no ambition for obtaining more gold. He seems more like an offended hermit, to myself, than a greedy, blood-thirsty, and naive pawn.



I was just mimicking most of the people in this thread and arguing an _unsubstantiated_ opinion. It's strangely ironic that when _I_ do instead of applaud I get the same response if I supported my arguments with evidence. 



YayGollum said:


> Towards this hierarchy versus any other approach thing ---> Has it not been proved plenty of times that the hierarchy means less than the individuals? You have quotes that I've been arguing that don't prove that every balrog has more power than every dragon.



*That's EXACTLY what they prove*. But not in the sense of a combat between the two. One simply has greater inherent strength than the other. I am *formulating* an *opinion* based on this discussion by Tolkien. Why is that so difficult to understand???


----------



## chrysophalax

But isn't a battle between the two what we're discussing here? The fact that one is more inherently powerful than the other is not necessarily an advantage. It's not what you have, it's what you do with it.

Given the descriptions of both creatures, Smaug and Durin's Bane, I would choose the Dragon every time. Why? Wel, first of all, they seem evenly matched. Both use fire as their primary weapon, both have vulnerable spots in their chest areas (though Smaug's is not commonly known).

Then we come to Smaug's advantages: flight, inherent magick, fire-proof hide, huge claws and teeth, his tail, his bulk and his intelligence. Whether or not he has a lesser Ainur or Maia inside him is not addressed in the Hobbit, (which would be the only work of Tolkien's that could be quoted regarding him, as far as I know). His own irascible nature seems to work for him just fine.

Durin's Bane's advantages are his whip and sword of flame, the fact that he is an Ainur/Maia type and therefore after death his soul/spirit is imperishable, his track record (there is incontrovertable evidence that he slew countless dwarves when he fled to Moria and probably many elves as well prior to that), so his intimidation factor is quite high.

Now we come to an interesting question, because I believe what would determine the outcome of such a battle would be intelligence. Does having intelligence require the presence of a soul? I believe there's another thread that addresses just such a question.

The winner here cannot be guessed or proven by quotes here, only by reasoned assumption, which , in my case, brings me down on the side of the Dragon. Dragons tended to be loose cannons, as Morgoth discovered with Glaurung. They can think outside the box, whereas balrogs seem to me to be soldiers, obeying commands and doing as they were directed, with a more limited capacity for strategy.


----------



## Úlairi

chrysophalax said:


> But isn't a battle between the two what we're discussing here? The fact that one is more inherently powerful than the other is not necessarily an advantage. It's not what you have, it's what you do with it.
> 
> ...
> 
> The winner here cannot be guessed or proven by quotes here, only by reasoned assumption, which , in my case, brings me down on the side of the Dragon. Dragons tended to be loose cannons, as Morgoth discovered with Glaurung. They can think outside the box, whereas balrogs seem to me to be soldiers, obeying commands and doing as they were directed, with a more limited capacity for strategy.



_Reasoned assumption_ will prove a winner? Can't agree with that... ever. To assume A > B you must then prove it. The problem with assumption however, is that you can _assume_ anything; which makes this thread entirely ridiculous. I can assume that 1 out of every 4 Balrogs likes to be called 'Daisy'. Now I'm not saying what you've said is entirely void; as you've made assumptions based on known, pre-existing knowledge of the two. If there were no actual evidence supplied by the author on the matter then _reasoned assumption_ would be all you would have left; and only _then_ would I be 'all for' this discussion of their characteristics weighed against one another. However, in this circumstance we have more than that. They can _think outside the box_? Now, whilst I know this is an adage it may be useful here to classify what the _box_ is in relation to a Balrog's inability to do so.

Another important thing to note is that when Melkor was in dire straits in Lammoth he didn't call upon his Dragons to come save the day and serve up 'Toasted Spider' (a delicacy of Angband at the time ); but rather his *chief* and *most potent* servants: The Balrogs. It looks as though from a _strategic_ point of view this must have been a better move.


----------



## chrysophalax

Of course he didn't! He chose those he knew would do his bidding. The Dragons around at that time might have refused, or decided it wasn't worth their while. Tokien's Dragons are intelligent animals and, like all animals will do as they like from time to time, especially when bred to be wily and don't exactly have what one would call sunny personalities.

Also, I assume nothing. I argued based on what Tolkien wrote about Smaug and Durin's Bane in The Hobbit and LotR, What more would you have me say, other than to agree with you? I regret that you find my interpretation of the facts as I read them to be wanting. 

So, unless there is definitive proof that I have not found in either work ( which are the only works cogent to this discussion), that says my interpretation is erroneous, I'll be sticking with it.


----------



## YayGollum

Towards quotes, I understand your point of view. It was the point of view of many who aren't around as much, I agree. There are still some who enjoy a well-placed quote. I have never been one, much to the annoyance of many. I have the books close at hand. I look up all the quotes you people give. I'm just too lazy to go hunting for my own, which I know is in there someplace. Yes, giving quotes can make debates easier for my opponents, but I see no need to do that. We've read the same stuff. They should be able to prove me wrong, whether I spoon-feed the locations of counterpoints to them or not. 

Towards that Tolkien guy's views versus unsubstantiated ones, are you of the opinion that only those two options are available? Either we agree with Tolkien or our opinions are meaningless, when speaking of his inventions? Craziness. The guy wasn't perfect. And, sure, there are plenty of threads that only ask for people's opinions, but some also ask for reasons behind the opinions. Those opinions are oftenly based on what Tolkien wrote (gasp!  Wait. You truly didn't know this?), which makes them plenty substantiated, whether they agree with Tolkien or not. 

Anyways, Mel grabbed spirits via some horrible as well as unfair magic, or mayhaps spiritual ears are so clogged with honey that anybody's voice is just too swee to resist, and jammed them into those dragon things that had lots of fun with destroying Gondolin. You don't remember this? You require a quote for that? I can find the thing and type it all down, but I don't think that it's necessary, since I believe that we both remember reading it. Also, when elves die, and if they don't head for Mandos, Mel was then able to easily mess with them. You don't remember reading that, either? Because they were so easy for Mel to mess with, I don't see why he couldn't employ them for all sorts of things. Them, or other spirits. I already wrote some other stuff pertaining to this in that other thread about souls. oh well.

Towards who comes with more potence, first of all of the points I'm going to make on the subject, calm down. Secondly, let me go back and look at some of that stuff that we typed earlier. There was the bit about balrogs being the oldest and most potent of Mel's servants. Luckily, he never compares the power of his old and powerful guys to his young and most powerful guys. Also, balrogs signed up for Mel's army. They decided to be servants because they were loyal roadies that loved his music. Dragons were more independent. Partners, maybe? Mercenaries? Allies, not servants. 

Either way, there are many kinds of power, and Tolkien doesn't define either race's very much. Maybe a balrog's flames are hotter than a dragon's. At the least, they are always on, while a dragon has to take another breath. Mayhaps their fear ability makes people more unnaturally afraid than even a dragon could make somebody via their creepy hypnosis power. A balrog could be more powerful than a dragon in various ways and vice versa, with the quote still being correct. 

And! ---> Even if a balrog is somehow stronger than a dragon (which makes little sense), more intelligent than a dragon (an idea for which we only have evidence to the contrary), and better in every other way, a dragon could still kill a balrog. It happens all the time, that the weaker defeats the stronger, so whatever proof we have that one is better in some way than the other, the odds can only be in favor of one, and the odds don't always determine the outcome of a battle. And since we're talking about fiction, the more sympathetic character usually wins. Who doesn't like Smaug? 

Towards Shelob, yep, it does seem that she might be a little afraid of the light. Makes sense. "Augh! The deaths of many eye cells!" No? Anyways, the light is the light of a silmaril, which hurts evil types. The fact that she was afraid of it doesn't prove that she was incapable of eating light.

Towards your jest about Smaug's personality, got it. I request forgiveness for assuming that you were being serious. I understand that many people could come up with all kinds of crazily differing opinions via reading the same book. I challenged the views that you expressed, just as I challenge a view with a quote. I don't see why one should be seen as more valid than another, while dealing with a fellow intelligence of any level.


----------



## Úlairi

chrysophalax said:


> Of course he didn't! He chose those he knew would do his bidding. The Dragons around at that time might have refused, or decided it wasn't worth their while. Tokien's Dragons are intelligent animals and, like all animals will do as they like from time to time, especially when bred to be wily and don't exactly have what one would call sunny personalities.



You have Ancalagon, Glaurung and Smaug to go on in the incessant _determination_ of _Dragon Intellect_. Saying that "_Tolkien's Dragons are intelligent animals_" is completely unsubstantiated and what's more: _biased_. You'll also have to direct me to where you derived your inference that Balrogs were *un*intelligent because Melkor desired that they be subservient solely to his will. I've established above that of _The Great Descendants_ any procreation exhibited by Maiar entails the dissipation of their being as they become increasingly _earthbound_. Generations thus become weaker (i.e. *less potent* or *impotent*). It seems as though it was almost a trade-off between their _fëar_ and _hröar_. Thus any descendant of Glaurung would not be as _potent_ and so forth... Balrogs maintained their intrinsic _potency_ as they neither procreated nor did they expend their powers interchangeably with the _erma_ of Arda.



chrysophalax said:


> Also, I assume nothing. I argued based on what Tolkien wrote about Smaug and Durin's Bane in The Hobbit and LotR, What more would you have me say, other than to agree with you? I regret that you find my interpretation of the facts as I read them to be wanting.



Let me redirect you to _your_ assumption:



chrysophalax said:


> Of course he didn't! He chose those he knew would do his bidding. The Dragons around at that time might have refused, or decided it wasn't worth their while.



Sounds like someone's been doing a little _assuming_.



chrysophalax said:


> So, unless there is definitive proof that I have not found in either work ( which are the only works cogent to this discussion), that says my interpretation is erroneous, I'll be sticking with it.



The only works cogent to this discussion? This isn't amateur hour, chrysophalax. The only reason you _assume_ that these works are the only relevant ones to the discussion is because you simply don't want any discussion that requires an elaboration of the complexities of Tolkien's world that may conflict with your conclusions based on your personal taste... not the contentions of Tolkien apropos of *his* creations: The Dragons of Morgoth. As for definitive proof?

_And here... we... go_.



> _The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: Text X_
> 
> *For Morgoth had many servants, the oldest and most potent of whom were immortal, belonging indeed in their beginning to the Maiar...*





> _The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: Text VIII_
> 
> *...but by practising when embodied procreation they would (cf. Melian) [become] more and more earthbound, unable to return to spirit-state (even demon-form), until released by death (killing), and they would dwindle in force.*





> _The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: Text VIII_
> 
> *But again - would Eru provide fëar for such creatures? For the Eagles etc. perhaps. But not for Orcs.*



Ahhhh, it's a veritable quote-fest!!!

Now, as to *your precioussss* _Dragon Intellect Theory_ - here's a little bite-sized quote (oh no!):



> _The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: Text VIII_
> 
> *I think it must be assumed that 'talking' is not necessarily the sign of the possession of a 'rational soul' or fëa. The Orcs were beasts of humanized shape (to mock Men and Elves) deliberately perverted / converted into a more close resemblance to Men. Their 'talking' was really reeling off 'records' set in them by Melkor. ... Melkor taught them speech and as they bred they inherited this; and they had just as much independence as have, say, dogs or horses of their human masters. This talking was largely echoic (cf. parrots). In The Lord of the Rings Sauron is said to have devised a language for them.
> 
> The same sort of thing may be said of Húan and the Eagles: they were taught language by the Valar, and raised to a higher level - but they still had no fëar.*



So, we have:


Balrogs are *more potent* than Dragons.
Through the practise of procreation whilst embodied the Úmaiar (and Maiar - _cf. Melian_) _dwindled_ in force and thus grew progressively _impotent_.
Ilúvatar would not provide _fëar_ for Dragons and thus Melkor must procure them; and through the expenditure of his will upon them through the perversion to continual procreation (_breeding the brood_) they would _dwindle in force_ again and again...
_Talking_ is not a sign of a _rational soul_ or _fëar_. Without _fëar_ creatures in Middle-earth are nothing more than animals and essentially deprived of an intellect; not imbued with a great intellect as Melkor could only _sub_-_create_ and great intellect requires a _rational soul_. As animals *they have as much independence as a dog or horse* and hence the ability of Morgoth to dominate them wholly would have required little effort and virtually no expenditure of his will in their domination whasoever. Read the passage in _Myths Transformed_ as to the Orcs being incapable of action without the mind of Melkor directing them.
The _talking_ was much like that of a *parrot*!!! Smaug could've been nothing more than a _gifted mimic_!!!

Conversely, we have Balrogs. Ainur in origin, capable of assuming _demon-form_, *most potent* of Melkor's servants, demanded enormous expenditure of will by Melkor to enslave and pervert them to Darkness (implying not only great intellect but also _great power_) and never _dissipated_ their being through interaction with Arda itself! 

I certainly know what team I'm batting for!


----------



## Úlairi

YayGollum said:


> Towards quotes, I understand your point of view. It was the point of view of many who aren't around as much, I agree. There are still some who enjoy a well-placed quote. I have never been one, much to the annoyance of many. I have the books close at hand. I look up all the quotes you people give. I'm just too lazy to go hunting for my own, which I know is in there someplace. Yes, giving quotes can make debates easier for my opponents, but I see no need to do that. We've read the same stuff. They should be able to prove me wrong, whether I spoon-feed the locations of counterpoints to them or not.



We may have read the same stuff; but that is completely irrelevant in the discussion of that _stuff_. Thousands of Uni students can read the same _stuff_, sit the exam and yet we still get a wide variety of results. Funny that... 



YayGollum said:


> Towards that Tolkien guy's views versus unsubstantiated ones, are you of the opinion that only those two options are available? Either we agree with Tolkien or our opinions are meaningless, when speaking of his inventions? Craziness. The guy wasn't perfect. And, sure, there are plenty of threads that only ask for people's opinions, but some also ask for reasons behind the opinions. Those opinions are oftenly based on what Tolkien wrote (gasp!  Wait. You truly didn't know this?), which makes them plenty substantiated, whether they agree with Tolkien or not.



Yes, that is *exactly* what I'm purporting to say. However, what Tolkien left out (to our enormous benefit) was the answer to _every possible question_ that could potentially be asked about his incredible works. This thread wouldn't exist if there had been an epic battle between the Balrogs and Dragons. There are a _myriad_ of little nooks and crannies that remain _undiscovered_ in the world of Tolkien and a _mission statement_ of a forum like this is to investigate these dark places with the brightest light available to us; and the _brightest light_ are the _opinions_ of Tolkien himself on a range of matters that do not give us a simple _yes_ or _no_ to these questions - but simply what we can _infer_, _derive_ and _conclude_ based on these assertions. These are the ingredients of a cogent, coherent and ultimately fruitful discussion and even (heaven forbid) _elaboration_ on the works of Tolkien. Haven't you ever just sat back and wondered where the hell a discussion was going? When you drive your car you usually have a destination in mind; but it appears that many members on this forum simply want to _drive for the sake of driving_; bereft of destination. Ultimately? _Destination Unknown_. 



YayGollum said:


> Anyways, Mel grabbed spirits via some horrible as well as unfair magic, or mayhaps spiritual ears are so clogged with honey that anybody's voice is just too swee to resist, and jammed them into those dragon things that had lots of fun with destroying Gondolin. You don't remember this? You require a quote for that? I can find the thing and type it all down, but I don't think that it's necessary, since I believe that we both remember reading it.



Now I *truly* don't want to be insulting here Yay, as I like you; your a fun (albeit completely insane ) guy so I'll say this as nicely as possible. You're right, I _remember_ the _Fall of Gondolin_; what I don't _understand_ is a cogent and coherent point. All you've said here is: _Mel jammed spirits into Dragons and they destroyed Gondolin_. *The End*.

And??? ... ??? ... *???*

I might actually need a quote to see where you've actually made a point, Yay. The _crazy_ thing, you see Yay, is that I couldn't actually find anywhere where it says: _Mel jammed spirits into Dragons_ in _The Fall of Gondolin_ (in _The Silmarillion_ ). 



YayGollum said:


> Also, when elves die, and if they don't head for Mandos, Mel was then able to easily mess with them. You don't remember reading that, either? Because they were so easy for Mel to mess with, I don't see why he couldn't employ them for all sorts of things. Them, or other spirits. I already wrote some other stuff pertaining to this in that other thread about souls. oh well.



This isn't such a bad assertion Yay, as here I _actually know_ what you'e referring to here! But, with your photographic knowledge of Tolkien's works than I'm *sure* you can tell me where this quote comes from:



> *The fëa is indestructible, a unique identity which cannot be disintegrated or absorbed into any other identity.*



Whoa! Hold on there! Did _Tolkien_ just say that _fëar_ *CANNOT BE ABSORBED INTO ANY OTHER IDENTITY???* Surely you disagree Yay as Melkor couldn't possibly not have had the power to be able to _absorb_ an Elvish _fëa_ into a Dragon.

Now I know you remember this one too... it's a Large Whopper with Extra Fries:



> *From this it would follow in thought, if it were not a fact of Elvish experience, that a 'houseless' Elvish fëa must have the power or opportunity to return to incarnate life, if it has the desire or will to do so. (Actually the Elves discovered that their fëar had not this power in themselves, but that the opportunity and means were provided by the Valar, by the special permission for the amendment of the unnatural state of divorce.*



Not another quote from that Tolkien person!!! It was only Eru through the agency of the Valar that could allow an Elvish _fëa_ to assume a new _identity_. I guess that just ties in with that other dastardly quote:



> *But again - would Eru provide fëar for such creatures? For the Eagles etc. perhaps. But not for Orcs. ...
> 
> The same sort of thing may be said of Húan and the Eagles: they were taught language by the Valar, and raised to a higher level - but they still had no fëar.*



Guess Melkor just couldn't get that Elvish Undead Recruiting Agency (EURA) up and running due to competition in the marketplace.



YayGollum said:


> Towards who comes with more potence, first of all of the points I'm going to make on the subject, calm down. Secondly, let me go back and look at some of that stuff that we typed earlier. There was the bit about balrogs being the oldest and most potent of Mel's servants. Luckily, he never compares the power of his old and powerful guys to his young and most powerful guys. Also, balrogs signed up for Mel's army. They decided to be servants because they were loyal roadies that loved his music. Dragons were more independent. Partners, maybe? Mercenaries? Allies, not servants.



*Most potent* in its context is a comparison to *all* servants of Melkor. There is no _timeline_ in _Myths Transformed_. Re-read the quote... again.



YayGollum said:


> Either way, there are many kinds of power, and Tolkien doesn't define either race's very much. Maybe a balrog's flames are hotter than a dragon's. At the least, they are always on, while a dragon has to take another breath. Mayhaps their fear ability makes people more unnaturally afraid than even a dragon could make somebody via their creepy hypnosis power. A balrog could be more powerful than a dragon in various ways and vice versa, with the quote still being correct.



_Potency_ is not just a reference to power, but also _might_ as it is inherent in the meaning of the word _potent_. _Might_ is comparable between any agent of Morgoth, be it Dragon or Balrog. Might infers an ability to overcome _physically_. You can keep attempting to decontextualize quotes Yay; it doesn't change the intrinsic meaning.



YayGollum said:


> And! ---> Even if a balrog is somehow stronger than a dragon (which makes little sense), more intelligent than a dragon (an idea for which we only have evidence to the contrary), and better in every other way, a dragon could still kill a balrog. It happens all the time, that the weaker defeats the stronger, so whatever proof we have that one is better in some way than the other, the odds can only be in favor of one, and the odds don't always determine the outcome of a battle. And since we're talking about fiction, the more sympathetic character usually wins. Who doesn't like Smaug?



So the point of the thread is what then? _I like Balrogs so Balrogs would win_? Stimulating.



YayGollum said:


> Towards Shelob, yep, it does seem that she might be a little afraid of the light. Makes sense. "Augh! The deaths of many eye cells!" No? Anyways, the light is the light of a silmaril, which hurts evil types. The fact that she was afraid of it doesn't prove that she was incapable of eating light.



It does say _continually_ that Shelob's hungry. What better way to gorge herself? Instead of going: *"Dinner? And Dessert? Baggins Catering Service is the bomb..."* she says: *"No, I'm not in the mood for light today, it's a little scary. I'll just have the hobbit thanks."* Yeah, I can totally see the logic there.



YayGollum said:


> Towards your jest about Smaug's personality, got it. I request forgiveness for assuming that you were being serious. I understand that many people could come up with all kinds of crazily differing opinions via reading the same book. I challenged the views that you expressed, just as I challenge a view with a quote. I don't see why one should be seen as more valid than another, while dealing with a fellow intelligence of any level.



That's cool Yay. No need to worry.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Úlairi said:


> So, we have:
> 
> 1. Balrogs are more potent than Dragons.



Where does it say that?


----------



## chrysophalax

Originally Posted by chrysophalax 
Of course he didn't! He chose those he knew would do his bidding. The Dragons around at that time might have refused, or decided it wasn't worth their while. 

Posted by Ulairi "Sounds like someone's been doing a little assuming."

I wrote _might_, thereby making a supposition, not an assumption, And now, having procured a copy of Morgoth's Ring, I can rebutt your "parrot" slander with this:

Myths Transformed, VIII: _What of talking beasts and birds with reasoning and speech? These have been rather lightly adopted from less 'serious' mythologies, but play a part which cannot now be excised. They are certainly 'exceptions' and not much used, but sufficiently to show they are a recognised feature of the world. All other creatures accept them as natural if not common._ 

Whether they have souls or not is not addressed here, but it appears to me that Dragons would fall nicely into this category of reasoning beasts, wouldn't you say?

We must remember also that The Hobbit was published in 1937, whereas the Histories were, as written on the flyleaf of Morgoth's Ring, "From the time when his father turned again to 'the Matter of the Eldar Days' after The Lord of the Rings was at last achieved." To me, this indicates that his published versions were the definitive ones, though some may choose to disagree.


----------



## Illuin

> Originally posted by Ithrynluin
> 
> _Where does it say that?_


 

Exactly! The same point all of us have been making; but we get no direct answer (because there isn't one). All we get is the usual long-winded circumvention of actual evidence. 





> Originally posted by chrysophalax
> 
> _And now, having procured a copy of Morgoth's Ring, I can rebutt your "parrot" slander with this_


 

Parrot slander indeed! 


I have never seen such a dense, concentrated, steaming pile of malarkey compacted into a single post in my life. Talk about spin! However; knowing you’re a Law student, I must say that you have chosen your niche wisely. If circumstances and timing were changed, you probably could have coughed up enough smoke to get O.J. off the hook again .


----------



## Úlairi

Ithrynluin said:


> Where does it say that?



*ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? I KNOW YOU'RE ALL INTELLIGENT, SO HOW CAN ALL OF YOU BE THIS DENSE??? *



Illuin said:


> Exactly! The same point all of us have been making; but we get no direct answer (because there isn't one). All we get is the usual long-winded circumvention of actual evidence.



I'm gonna come right out and say this. For someone who harps on incessantly about knowing the works back-to-front; you sure don't have the faintest idea where I'm getting all these *made-up* quotes from. I expected more from someone like you who keeps professing his _flawlessly photographic knowledge_. What's worse, is that this has been posted more times than I can remember; and *none* of you can recall it. It's mind-blowing!

*I...
HAVE...
POSTED...
THIS...
CLOSE...
TO...
TEN...
TIMES...* 



> _The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: Text X - page 418 of my copy_
> 
> *For Morgoth had many servants,** the oldest and most potent of whom were immortal, belonging indeed in their beginning to the Maiar; and these evil spirits like their Master could take on visible forms.*



*THAT IS THE LAST TIME THAT WILL BE POSTED.* All you've accomplished here is _proving_ that in a time where quotes are purported to be meaningless; we now need them more than _ever_. Balrogs were Maiar and his oldest servants. Thus they were the *most potent*. _Quod erat demonstratum_.



chrysophalax said:


> I wrote might, thereby making a supposition, not an assumption, And now, having procured a copy of Morgoth's Ring, I can rebutt your "parrot" slander with this:



A supposition? Fair enough. I'll take that. If were going to throw c r a p at each other then perhaps we should start a sentence with "_Assumption_:" or "_Supposition_:"



chrysophalax said:


> Myths Transformed, VIII: What of talking beasts and birds with reasoning and speech? These have been rather lightly adopted from less 'serious' mythologies, but play a part which cannot now be excised. They are certainly 'exceptions' and not much used, but sufficiently to show they are a recognised feature of the world. All other creatures accept them as natural if not common.
> 
> Whether they have souls or not is not addressed here, but it appears to me that Dragons would fall nicely into this category of reasoning beasts, wouldn't you say?



I never claimed they couldn't reason. _Animals_ can reason - I often wonder if my cat's been genetically enhanced - some of the things she can work out is incredible. There's also the _crow experiment_. Wanna know how they proved that crows are the third (or fourth?) most intelligent creature on the planet. They put a piece of meat in a jar with an opening in the lid not large enough to get their beaks through. The scientists (they could have been physicists! ) left a piece of malleable wire. Wanna know what the _rational beasts_ did? They bent the wire into the shape of a hook and used it to get the meat out of the jar! This _quote_ simply proves they were _rational beasts_. They were still devoid of _rational souls_ and, as I said, _*great*_ intelligence - such as the intelligence you constantly purport the beloved Smaug to have.



chrysophalax said:


> We must remember also that The Hobbit was published in 1937, whereas the Histories were, as written on the flyleaf of Morgoth's Ring, "From the time when his father turned again to 'the Matter of the Eldar Days' after The Lord of the Rings was at last achieved." To me, this indicates that his published versions were the definitive ones, though some may choose to disagree.



These are _incorruptible commentaries_ on works already published! It would be _more idiotic_ if _Myths Transformed_ were published _before_ the others as there would be _nothing to *comment* on_!!! These _myths_ are, as far as I'm concerned, gospel. In _The Silmarillion_ _Arda Sahta_ ('Arda Marred') is mentioned twice or at best thrice. In _Myths Transformed_ the _elaboration_ given by JRRT was _critical_ to a greater and in-depth knowledge of a *magnificent* concept. Tolkien was an _incredible philosopher_; especially when it came to _commentaries_ published _after_ his works had been _achieved_. To stand there and *discredit* them in such a fashion proves only one thing to me; you've run out of ideas in which you can establish the greater _inherent_ power of Dragons.

Until people start getting their facts and heaven forbid, *quotes* straight; I'm gonna do something that'll make you all _ecstatic_. I'm not going to post in here anymore. Yippee!!!


----------



## Illuin

> Originally posted by Úlairi
> _you who keeps professing his flawlessly photographic knowledge_


 
When did I ever say that. I said I was a physicist, that was all; and your imagination did the rest (I’m impressed, I was beginning to wonder if you had one). Anyway, please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m a humble guy and only revealed my profession because I was angry about what you said to Fir (still think it would show some integrity if you apologized).

_*



For Morgoth had many servants, the oldest and most potent of whom were immortal, belonging indeed in their beginning to the Maiar; and these evil spirits like their Master could take on visible forms.

Click to expand...

*_ 
This is the crux of the argument that we dense folk have a problem with. We are very familiar with the quote, so it was unnecessary to quote it again. The flaw in your argument stems from the fact that no specific Maiar are named (except Orcs that seemed to live on and on). In _The Children of Húrin_ it states,_ *"Against them he sent his formidable servant, Glaurung, a powerful spirit in the form of a huge wingless dragon of fire."*_ Who is to say that the _"powerful spirit"_ here was not of the Maiar? If it wasn’t a Maia, then it must have been a Vala; no? It certainly wasn’t the spirit of an Elf from the Halls of Mandos, or the spirit of a Man from who knows where. Can you not see the gray area here; and the hole in your argument; or are you subconsciously blocking this from your mind?

Let me put this in your language. If you read between the lines a little bit, you should realize that part of my post addressed to you was meant to be a compliment. To someone who does not particularly care for Lawyers and their ilk; it would have been somewhat insolent on my part. But since you aspire to be a Lawyer, I was merely commending your tactics. Take this case for example: Smaug vs. Balrog. You pose a neat, well organized, well researched, well thought out, well written, thorough, convincing argument for the Balrog - your client. You have done everything a good Lawyer could possibly do to win his case; leaving no stone unturned. Unfortunately…..you’re wrong; the evidence is not there to support your arguments; and you would lose in court 

.


----------



## YayGollum

Hmmm...yes, I suppose that I should be an evil moderating type and moderate the language of that post a bit. There's some kind of rule about that, yes? I've ignored other stuff, but this seems more capable of getting people annoyed. If I had been here, I would have pointed the ithrynluin person to your points, Ulairi person. Either way, it was kind of funny. Not everyone reads through all of the posts that have come before them. No large deal, dude. Or mayhaps the points you made weren't clear enough?  Ah! Or mayhaps I'm just messing up the ithrynluin person's awesome attempt of exasperating you out of a thread. 

Anyways, to answer for the sake of completing things, here is a quote from that The Fall Of Gondolin story (I do them every now as well as then. Just not too often) ---> "...others of bronze and copper were given hearts and spirits of blazing fire," 

Towards not being able to stick spirits into stuff, besides that quote, there's also this, from that The Silmarillion book ---> "...and Sauron brought werewolves, fell beasts inhabited by dreadful spirits that he had imprisoned in their bodies."

Towards potence, yet again, sure, I will happily admit that the quotes seem to support your argument. I am merely pointing out loopholes that take your victory away. Also, there's this, from that Unfinished Tales book ---> "His power is rather in the evil spirit that dwells within him than in the might of his body, great though that be." The vaguely-defined potence that you figure to be enough to defeat a dragon isn't so great. Balrogs have flame and steel for bodies (or somehow incorporeal but not really?) and vaguely-defined power. Would you admit that a dragon's body is way better than a balrog's? So, even if (and I wouldn't admit it) a dragon's spirit is less potent than a balrog's, that, combined with the body, easily wins. 

And towards Shelob (just for fun), what? There's logic in that. Tolkien never goes into details on what her favorite foods are. She eats Orcs every now and then. None have come back alive to observe her eating light. The superly boring Frodo's light hurts evil types, so mayhaps she was logical enough to not contemplate downing something that might be too spicy for her? And Tolkien barely tells us anything about the Mirkwood spiders, either. There were a lot of them, though, and it was pretty dark up in there. Makes sense, to myself.


----------



## chrysophalax

I'm thinking the wisest course may be to agree to disagree in this case. The scent of philosophical blood is in the air and it would be best not to spill it.


----------



## Ithrynluin

Ulairi said:


> ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? I KNOW YOU'RE ALL INTELLIGENT, SO HOW CAN ALL OF YOU BE THIS DENSE???



I am neither kidding you, nor are we being dense, we're just in disagreement with your sweeping statements, such as:




> So, we have:
> 
> 1. Balrogs are more potent than Dragons.



We in fact have no such thing, you just made several leaps that do not necessarily follow one another, but seem to suit your fancy; which is fine, as long as you're not trying to palm it off as fact. For the record, I also voted Balrogs way back when, even if I am now more or less in two minds about the subject.

Anyhow, those Myths Transformed quotes do not mention dragons. There's plenty of room for interpretation, e.g.:

a) Dragons were all Maiar corrupted by Melkor 
b) Only some of the dragons were Maiar (e.g. the greatest ones, such as Glaurung, Ancalagon, ?Smaug...), whereas most other dragons were just oversized lizards/soulless beasts
c) Only some of the dragons were Maiar who took on the shape of dragons and bred with other such beasts to create progeny whose Maiaric blood would in time become diluted
.
..
...


----------



## Prince of Cats

I fail to make any connection between an undefined 'potence' and the outcome of a one on one physical fight


----------



## Úlairi

Illuin said:


> When did I ever say that. I said I was a physicist, that was all; and your imagination did the rest (I’m impressed, I was beginning to wonder if you had one). Anyway, please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m a humble guy and only revealed my profession because I was angry about what you said to Fir (still think it would show some integrity if you apologized).





Illuin earlier said:


> You do realize that most of us have read all of these books a thousand times over; and most of us are very familiar with all of your quotes as well ...



Fir and I are working things out in our own good time Illuin, there's no need to concern yourself with that. 



Illuin said:


> This is the crux of the argument that we dense folk have a problem with. We are very familiar with the quote, so it was unnecessary to quote it again. The flaw in your argument stems from the fact that no specific Maiar are named (except Orcs that seemed to live on and on). In _The Children of Húrin_ it states,_ *"Against them he sent his formidable servant, Glaurung, a powerful spirit in the form of a huge wingless dragon of fire."*_ Who is to say that the _"powerful spirit"_ here was not of the Maiar? If it wasn’t a Maia, then it must have been a Vala; no? It certainly wasn’t the spirit of an Elf from the Halls of Mandos, or the spirit of a Man from who knows where. Can you not see the gray area here; and the hole in your argument; or are you subconsciously blocking this from your mind?



Now the reason I've decided to post back in here again is because you raise valid and cogent point that require redress. Whether _specific_ Úmaiar are named or anonymous is inherently irrelevant: only one Balrog has a name. Now a big problem for me is that I, admittedly, have not read _The Children of Húrin_ eek. That quote is quite interesting, but if I can kindly direct your attention to previous posts of mine... again... then you will see that I *never* disputed that some of the Dragons were *initially* Maiar. I simply said that through the practice of reproduction they became _increasingly earthbound_ through expenditure of power (a feature inherent in myth) through interaction with _erma_ which resulted in their dissipation of _inherent being_. I don't see a grey area here; as there is no hole. We (as I have been reminded incessantly) are looking at Smaug in particular; who is _unequivocally_ a *descendant* of Glaurung. Thus due to the abhorrent practice of _Úmaiar-istic procreation_ and from the sheer magnitude of information I provided via. quotes above Smaug may have been nothing more than an automaton _reeling off records_ and has dwindled to the point where he is simply an _animal_, bereft of a _rational soul_. Thus this whole _Intelligence Theory_ is the one with potential holes in it, and not mine. If I were to subconsciously block anything from my mind Illuin, it would hopefully be the coherency of your argument.



Illuin said:


> Let me put this in your language. If you read between the lines a little bit, you should realize that part of my post addressed to you was meant to be a compliment. To someone who does not particularly care for Lawyers and their ilk; it would have been somewhat insolent on my part. But since you aspire to be a Lawyer, I was merely commending your tactics. Take this case for example: Smaug vs. Balrog. You pose a neat, well organized, well researched, well thought out, well written, thorough, convincing argument for the Balrog - your client. You have done everything a good Lawyer could possibly do to win his case; leaving no stone unturned. Unfortunately…..you’re wrong; the evidence is not there to support your arguments; and you would lose in court
> 
> .



Well thank you for the compliment; I was aware of it at the time but my indignation and fury drowned out the warm, fuzzy feelings I get when someone _adulates_ my work.  I don't see how I've lost the argument at all, however. I must just be _blocking it out_. 



YayGollum said:


> Hmmm...yes, I suppose that I should be an evil moderating type and moderate the language of that post a bit. There's some kind of rule about that, yes? I've ignored other stuff, but this seems more capable of getting people annoyed. If I had been here, I would have pointed the ithrynluin person to your points, Ulairi person. Either way, it was kind of funny. Not everyone reads through all of the posts that have come before them. No large deal, dude. Or mayhaps the points you made weren't clear enough? Ah! Or mayhaps I'm just messing up the ithrynluin person's awesome attempt of exasperating you out of a thread.



You might just be more evil than I am, Yay. That's terrifying.  



YayGollum said:


> Anyways, to answer for the sake of completing things, here is a quote from that The Fall Of Gondolin story (I do them every now as well as then. Just not too often) ---> "...others of bronze and copper were given hearts and spirits of blazing fire,"



You see what happens when you quote Yay? Your arguments make _more_ sense? Amazing. 



YayGollum said:


> Towards not being able to stick spirits into stuff, besides that quote, there's also this, from that The Silmarillion book ---> "...and Sauron brought werewolves, fell beasts inhabited by dreadful spirits that he had imprisoned in their bodies."



_Dreadful_ spirits in this context would (and I know what you're *ALL* going to say) certainly be Úmaiar or Ainur of lesser degree. As can be seen from the quotes from _Myths Transformed_ neither Elves *nor Men* had a choice to re-inhabit _hröar_ without the permission of Ilúvatar through the agency of the Valar (i.e. Mandos). As for Men the fact that they could not _re-inhabit_ can also be found in _Morgoth's Ring_. It's interesting as purely a sidenote that it mentions Sauron's practice of this and yet not Morgoth's; who supposedly engaged in the same activity. 



YayGollum said:


> Towards potence, yet again, sure, I will happily admit that the quotes seem to support your argument. I am merely pointing out loopholes that take your victory away. Also, there's this, from that Unfinished Tales book ---> "His power is rather in the evil spirit that dwells within him than in the might of his body, great though that be." The vaguely-defined potence that you figure to be enough to defeat a dragon isn't so great. Balrogs have flame and steel for bodies (or somehow incorporeal but not really?) and vaguely-defined power. Would you admit that a dragon's body is way better than a balrog's? So, even if (and I wouldn't admit it) a dragon's spirit is less potent than a balrog's, that, combined with the body, easily wins.



You'll _admit it supports my argument_???  *faints*

Yes, there are certain loopholes that take victory away; but they are small and all of you desperately cling to them like infant Urulóki sucking on the teet of Glaurung's mate. The quote, whilst interesting, actually supports _my_ argument that despite the _physical might_; _inherent might_ comes from the _fëa_ or the _spirit per se_. Thanks for that quote Yay. This *actually requires less* of a comparison between their physical bodies and more a comparison of the _inherent might of the fëa_; which, as delineated on a myriad of occasions; is greater _intrinisically_ than that of a Dragon; as Dragons are actually *mortal* Illuin (see above). To qualify to be a Maiar _in origin_ to be the *most potent* of Morgoth's servants; one actually has to be _immortal_ - like the _immortal Orcs_. Closing those annoying little _holes_ again...



YayGollum said:


> And towards Shelob (just for fun), what? There's logic in that. Tolkien never goes into details on what her favorite foods are. She eats Orcs every now and then. None have come back alive to observe her eating light. The superly boring Frodo's light hurts evil types, so mayhaps she was logical enough to not contemplate downing something that might be too spicy for her? And Tolkien barely tells us anything about the Mirkwood spiders, either. There were a lot of them, though, and it was pretty dark up in there. Makes sense, to myself.



You can interpret this however you wish; I believe Tolkien in Cirith Ungol made it abundantly unequivocal that Shelob couldn't consume light; and the fact that she was continually hungry would imply that she would devour it if capable. Ungoliant actually crept slowly _toward_ Valinor to be nearer to the Two Trees; whereas Shelob dwelt in dark places deep under the world.


----------



## Úlairi

Ithrynluin said:


> I am neither kidding you, nor are we being dense, we're just in disagreement with your sweeping statements...
> 
> We in fact have no such thing, you just made several leaps that do not necessarily follow one another, but seem to suit your fancy; which is fine, as long as you're not trying to palm it off as fact. For the record, I also voted Balrogs way back when, even if I am now more or less in two minds about the subject.



Thanks for the vote, son.  These _several leaps_ were _coherent_, _ordered_ and ultimately _logical_ in _derivation_. I've explained it so many times above I just can't be bothered going through it all again. 



Ithrynluin said:


> Anyhow, those Myths Transformed quotes do not mention dragons. There's plenty of room for interpretation, e.g.:
> 
> a) Dragons were all Maiar corrupted by Melkor
> b) Only some of the dragons were Maiar (e.g. the greatest ones, such as Glaurung, Ancalagon, ?Smaug...), whereas most other dragons were just oversized lizards/soulless beasts
> c) Only some of the dragons were Maiar who took on the shape of dragons and bred with other such beasts to create progeny whose Maiaric blood would in time become diluted
> .
> ..
> ...




Whilst they are not _mentioned_; they are _alluded_ to through the use of that beautiful word _etc_. The _logic_ is simple: 
A Úmaiar that procreates produces offspring with no _fëa_.
An offspring with no _fëa_ has no _rational_ or _reasoning soul_.
A Úmaiar _per se_ is the *oldest* and *MOST POTENT* of *ALL* Morgoth's servants.
An offspring with no _fëa_ is not a Úmaiar.
A Úmaiar that produces offspring becomes _earthbound_ and _dwindles_ in force.
A Balrog produces no offspring as they remain in _demon-form_ and thus *do not* _dissipate_ their _inherent being_.

Thus a Balrog is *more potent* and thus _mightier_ in _spirit_ than an offspring of a Dragon or a Úmaiar that practices procreation.
It is thus *ir-rel-e-vant* if the Dragons are Offspring or Úmaiar as they either have no _fëa_ or have _dwindled_ from their original stature.
Q.E.D.
The End.



Prince of Cats said:


> I fail to make any connection between an undefined 'potence' and the outcome of a one on one physical fight



I fail to make any connection between relevance and your post.


----------



## Alcuin

Úlairi said:


> _Dreadful_ spirits in this context would (and I know what you're *ALL* going to say) certainly be Úmaiar or Ainur of lesser degree. As can be seen from the quotes from _Myths Transformed_ neither Elves *nor Men* had a choice to re-inhabit _hröar_ without the permission of Ilúvatar through the agency of the Valar (i.e. Mandos). As for Men the fact that they could not _re-inhabit_ can also be found in _Morgoth's Ring_. It's interesting as purely a sidenote that it mentions Sauron's practice of this and yet not Morgoth's; who supposedly engaged in the same activity.


I find your characterization not entirely accurate. 

In _Morgoth’s Ring_, there is a specific warning not to engage in conversation or interaction of any sort with the Houseless Elves. Part of the warning says that the Houseless could, apparently on their own and _of their own power_, possess the body of another person – one presumes that the warning is directed to Men and not other Elves – in other words, they _could_ inhabit the bodies, the _hröar_, of others. This an evil act: but these Houseless Elves _are_ often evil. (I.e., not all Elves are good, as we generally assume in Tolkien. BTW, the text does not say all Houseless Elves are evil, only that some of them are; but rejecting the summons to Mandos is a sign of the taint of evil, and so they must not be trusted; and it leaves them open to a powerful counter-summons by Sauron or his followers.) The text also says that Sauron – _The_ Necromancer – and his servants engaged in enslaving these Houseless Elves, putting them to nefarious purposes, and such acts are sorcery and necromancy. The Barrow-wights are such works, I strongly suspect.

As for Maiar that inhabited other forms, there is the example of Boldog in _Lays of Beleriand_, a lesser Maiar that took the form of an Orc and acted as an Orc captain for Morgoth. After all, if Melian can do it, or Olórin, why not the fallen Maiar, too? 

The Balrogs were “spirits of fire.” Nowhere does Tolkien say that these were the only Maiar that fell and followed Morgoth. Some of them were definitely _not_ spirits of fire: Ossë fell and then repented, although he remained rather wild and sometimes unreliable afterwards. And there were apparently others, too, that owed no allegiance to Morgoth, but served their own ends, yet still in rebellion against Eru: Ungoliant, for instance.

Finally there is Carcharoth, the Red Maw, the body of a wolf inhabited (or possessed or _infested_) with a ravenous spirit of some sort by Morgoth in order to overcome the minor Maia Huan the Hound. Now, even Wolf-Sauron could not overcome Huan: the spirit in Carcharoth must have been powerful and ferocious indeed. This cannot have been even a Houseless Elf, I think: it must have been a fallen Maia of some sort.


----------



## chrysophalax

Sucking at the teat of Glaurung's mate?!?  What was she, a cow or a goat? *tries to imagine any combination thereof and fails utterly* How little you know of we reptiles!


----------



## Ithrynluin

Úlairi said:


> I've explained it so many times above I just can't be bothered going through it all again.



Thank God for small favours, eh?


----------



## Illuin

> by Ithrynluin
> _Thank God for small favours, eh?_


 
Hallelujah AMEN!


----------



## Prince of Cats

Haha Dangit! Who put those two votes in for the Balrog!?!  That was pretty interesting it was a dead tie for a while

In the recent Tolkien vs. Shakespeare thread someone (forgive my not looking up who it was, especially you who it was) said that Tolkien's work could be less great because it is too confining - everything is already determined or something like that and less room for role playing (I think I am remembering who it was  ). Though this thread, for better or worse, came to a match of sorts I don't see either side having 'won' in determining the answer to the topic. In addition, I've seen some new members here who, when reading their posts, seem to have a delightfully foreign to me feel of Tolkien and that uncerainty in Tolkien's world and room for interpretation I really enjoy.

One of my favorite parts about reading the Hobbit and the first few books of the Lord of the Rings was how there was so much history so little touched upon, you knew there was this rich and immense history from the ruins they encountered. I'm also fascinated by them set sort of after the great civilizations had seemingly crumbled. I've never had the pleasure of visiting Europe and here in America you can't find things like stone ruins or whatever and Tolkien really opened me up to fantasies about the past.

So yeah, I guess I mean to say that this thread reminds me both of how there is still unknown in Tolkien's world and reminds me of how that unknown (the kingdoms of the barrow-wights?) got me so sucked in in the first place.


----------



## Úlairi

Alcuin said:


> I find your characterization not entirely accurate.



Well I'm glad _someone_ in here still wants to talk about something _remotely_ *relevant*. Funny how people resort to petty insults when they have nothing of _substance_ or _value_ to say. This really ain't _The Tolkien Forum_ anymore, is it? That's fine, you guys can b*tch all day, it's all you're good for from what I'm seeing anyway. 



Ithrynluin said:


> Thank God for small favours, eh?



Well, if a Mod's allowed to take a shot than I guess the gloves can come off...

What was it Illuin said? Oh yeah...



Illuin said:


> Hallelujah AMEN!



I'm looking _forward_ to it. Come on guys, come and stomp this fool out! Throw the _book_ at me. Oh, I forgot, you don't actually _use_ them... oh well.

Back to the only person on the forum (apart from a few unnamed others) worth confabulation:



Alcuin said:


> In _Morgoth’s Ring_, there is a specific warning not to engage in conversation or interaction of any sort with the Houseless Elves. Part of the warning says that the Houseless could, apparently on their own and _of their own power_, possess the body of another person – one presumes that the warning is directed to Men and not other Elves – in other words, they _could_ inhabit the bodies, the _hröar_, of others.



True but false. However I believe the first sentence may have _contextualized_ the rest of the statement and thus what you have elucidated may _all_ be true.

For a _houseless fëa_ to _possess_ the _hröa_ of an _Eruhín_ the _Eruhín_ must (obviously) *first* _commune_ with it; but that's not all:



> _The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II)_
> 
> *Some say that the Houseless desire bodies, though they are not willing to seek them lawfully by submission to the judgment of Mandos. The wicked among them will take bodies, if they can, unlawfully. The peril of communing with them is, therefore, not only the peril of being deluded by fantasies or lies: there is peril also of destruction. For one of the hungry Houseless, if it is admitted to the friendship of the Living, may seek to eject the fëa from its body...*



Thus for one of the Houseless must be _enabled_ to _disposses_ a person from their _hröa_ through the *fundamental requisite* of _communication with them_. _Subcreation_ of *any* the Valar (or even Maiar) will *never* have _possession_ of a _fëa_ unless it is *first granted* by Ilúvatar. Aulë's Dwarves were not living, breathing _conscious_ beings with _volition_ *until* Eru granted them _rational souls_. Yavanna also *requested* Eru's permission to _house fëa_ within trees to create the Ents (*note*: this was not a finalized _literary decision_ of Tolkien's; but it makes *a lot* of sense). Thus any _subcreation_ of Morgoth's would be _fëa_-_less_; bereft of a _rational soul_. None of the _Houseless_ could thus _possess_ an empty vessel as they were not one of the _Living_; and to do so *must* first be granted by the will of Ilúvatar. That being said; I like the way you think Alcuin.



Alcuin said:


> This an evil act: but these Houseless Elves _are_ often evil. (I.e., not all Elves are good, as we generally assume in Tolkien. BTW, the text does not say all Houseless Elves are evil, only that some of them are; but rejecting the summons to Mandos is a sign of the taint of evil, and so they must not be trusted; and it leaves them open to a powerful counter-summons by Sauron or his followers.) The text also says that Sauron – _The_ Necromancer – and his servants engaged in enslaving these Houseless Elves, putting them to nefarious purposes, and such acts are sorcery and necromancy. The Barrow-wights are such works, I strongly suspect.



Whilst I agree with you (to an extent) here; the *only* textual evidence I could find in _Morgoth's Ring_ was from above and below (the continuation) of the paragraph I quoted above:



> _The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II)_
> 
> *Some were enslaved by the Dark Lord and do his work still, though he himself is gone. ... It is said that Sauron did these things, and taught his followers how to achieve them.*



So Sauron and his servants (and arguably Morgoth himself) could simply _commune_ with the _Houseless_ and potentially: 


*Wrest the fëa from another member of the Living (i.e. an Incarnate; a creature already with a pre-existing fëa and re-house the dispossessed hröa, or*
*Arguably force an Incarnate to be possessed with a co-existing, rehoused fëa.*

As already aforementioned, any _subcreation_ of the Ainur remains *without* a _fëa_ until it is granted by Eru. Thus the Houseless *cannot* _possess hrávë_ unless it is *already* _sentient_. 



Alcuin said:


> As for Maiar that inhabited other forms, there is the example of Boldog in _Lays of Beleriand_, a lesser Maiar that took the form of an Orc and acted as an Orc captain for Morgoth. After all, if Melian can do it, or Olórin, why not the fallen Maiar, too?



*Never* said they couldn't Alcuin. 



Alcuin said:


> The Balrogs were “spirits of fire.” Nowhere does Tolkien say that these were the only Maiar that fell and followed Morgoth. Some of them were definitely _not_ spirits of fire: Ossë fell and then repented, although he remained rather wild and sometimes unreliable afterwards. And there were apparently others, too, that owed no allegiance to Morgoth, but served their own ends, yet still in rebellion against Eru: Ungoliant, for instance.



*Never* said that either. I'm aware of Boldog and Ungoliant. In _The Silmarillion_ section, there is an _Ungoliant_ thread. Have a look at my post there. 



Alcuin said:


> Finally there is Carcharoth, the Red Maw, the body of a wolf inhabited (or possessed or _infested_) with a ravenous spirit of some sort by Morgoth in order to overcome the minor Maia Huan the Hound. Now, even Wolf-Sauron could not overcome Huan: the spirit in Carcharoth must have been powerful and ferocious indeed. This cannot have been even a Houseless Elf, I think: it must have been a fallen Maia of some sort.



Agreed. However, you can *find* in _Morgoth's Ring_ that Tolkien grappled with the concept that Huan was actually a Maia. Whilst I *believe* he was, all that is said of _Huan's Origin_ in _The Silmarillion_ is that "*he came from the Blessed Realm*" and also refers to his speech as that of "*the speaking of beasts*" in _Morgoth's Ring_. 

So, despite these chillingly execrable practices of Necromancy by Sauron & Co, it could only be achieved through beings with *pre-existing* _fëa_. Any _procreative_ acts by Úmaiar-Urulóki that became _increasingly earthbound_ through long exposure to 'Arda Marred' through the _erma_ of _hröa_ were inherently _enervated_. Their offspring would be deprived of _fëa_ and could thus not be _possessed_ through any acts of Necromancy unless this was, of course, the *will of Ilúvatar*; which is was not.


----------



## YayGollum

Eh. I'll probably edit this at a later point to stick some crippling blows into the debate part of this thread. For now, though ---> Argh. The Ulairi person has been dancing around with a few people. He's taken plenty of shots, and so have they. Sometimes the combatants shrug them off, sometimes it hurts. I was just waiting to see how the Ulairi person took this latest barrage. He took it with a counterattack, it looks like. How's about we stick to the arguing and forget about the fighting? No more, "You're stupid, and I give no compelling argument for why you is!" "Truly? Within that case, you're stupid, because we have different opinions?" "Gah! My defenses! I was merely warming upwards, though, for, under-handed insult! Wow! That was a good one!" *incoherent and probably obscene snarling* Do such things have a use, or are they merely your uncivilized guts reacting and forcing your paws to waste everyone's time by typing out such silliness?


----------



## chrysophalax

Basically...


----------



## Alcuin

*Úlairi*, as you well know since you parsed my post so closely, I never said you made any claims that Maiar did not inhabit other than those of the Incarnates. I built a case that they did, because you seem to have built a case that they did not inhabit dragons, at any rate.




Úlairi said:


> …I couldn't actually find anywhere where it says: Mel jammed spirits into Dragons in The Fall of Gondolin… Surely you disagree Yay as Melkor couldn't possibly not have had the power to be able to absorb an Elvish fëa into a Dragon. … It was only Eru through the agency of the Valar that could allow an Elvish fëa to assume a new identity.


I believe I have elided this citation fairly. Feel free to disagree. 

In response, to your assertion that, “It was only Eru through the agency of the Valar that could allow an Elvish fëa to assume a new identity,” I say, _yes_, as long as the Elves and the Valar followed the path prescribed for them by Eru; but the whole point of Morgoth and Sauron and all their followers is they are _in rebellion_ against Eru. That this rebellion is doomed to failure before it began, that it is self-destructive, or that it produces bad fruit is beside the point: that’s what these characters are doing in Tolkien’s subcreation. Necromancy and sorcery are, by their very nature, forbidden in the real world, and they are likewise forbidden in Tolkien’s subcreation.

(BTW, the word _subcreation_ is Tolkien’s own to describe his _opus corpus_ (body of work). I believe you questioned where it had arisen, and asked about my use of it elsewhere. See “On Fairy Stories”, most easily found in _Tolkien Reader_.) 



Úlairi said:


> The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: Text X - page 418 of my copy
> 
> For Morgoth had many servants, the oldest and most potent of whom were immortal, belonging indeed in their beginning to the Maiar; and these evil spirits like their Master could take on visible forms.
> 
> 
> 
> THAT IS THE LAST TIME THAT WILL BE POSTED. All you've accomplished here is proving that in a time where quotes are purported to be meaningless; we now need them more than ever. Balrogs were Maiar and his oldest servants. Thus they were the most potent. Quod erat demonstratum.
Click to expand...

Well, it wasn’t quite the last time: now I have posted it, too. 

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your QED is flawed. You have failed to exclude incarnations other than balrogs. “If and only if” is proof; you demonstrate sufficiency, but not uniqueness. You have also failed to exclude the movement of balrogs, the “oldest [noparse][[/noparse]and[noparse]][/noparse] most potent” of Morgoth’s servants, into other forms: your argument would not, for instance, preclude a balrog inhabiting the body of a particularly large, intelligent monster: say, Ancalagon the Black, for example. 

Before you jump to (or post) conclusions, I have not claimed that any balrog ever did do such a thing, only that you have not excluded it. You have, however, powerfully implied that anyone who made such a claim must be either a moron or some kind of raving lunatic.



Úlairi said:


> Alcuin said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Maiar that inhabited other forms, there is the example of Boldog in Lays of Beleriand, a lesser Maiar that took the form of an Orc and acted as an Orc captain for Morgoth. After all, if Melian can do it, or Olórin, why not the fallen Maiar, too?
> 
> 
> 
> Never said they couldn't Alcuin.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry, maybe I misunderstood the thrust of your argument. Clarity often suffers badly at the hands of competition if one’s goal is to overbear and defeat the ones around him; but it shines through cooperation.



Úlairi said:


> Alcuin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Balrogs were “spirits of fire.” Nowhere does Tolkien say that these were the only Maiar that fell and followed Morgoth. Some of them were definitely not spirits of fire: Ossë fell and then repented, although he remained rather wild and sometimes unreliable afterwards. And there were apparently others, too, that owed no allegiance to Morgoth, but served their own ends, yet still in rebellion against Eru: Ungoliant, for instance.
> 
> 
> 
> Never said that either. I'm aware of Boldog and Ungoliant. In The Silmarillion section, there is an Ungoliant thread. Have a look at my post there.
Click to expand...

The large print is hard to miss, but sometimes the point is lost in the noise: “what I don't understand is a cogent and coherent point.” I am glad to learn, however, that you will allow *YayGollum* room to speculate that “_Mel jammed spirits into Dragons and they destroyed Gondolin.”_ It is always nice to be given room for one’s own thoughts and private speculations, even if others believe them misdirected: Sauron and Morgoth begrudged others this room of maneuver.



Just between friends,


Úlairi said:


> This isn't amateur hour, chrysophalax.


might easily be mistaken for plainly insulting. This *IS* amateur hour: we _are_ amateur Tolkien scholars, even you. This is not moot court, either: winning at any cost is not conducive to open debate. You will frighten away the shy, and revolt those who have not the patience to deal with lawyerly revile. I am certain that, if you reflect upon it, you did not intend any such. 

By the way, a lot of the work I see at *TTF *and other Tolkien forums, work prepared by _amateurs_, is frequently a good deal better than a lot of the “professional” work I see, particularly from college and university professors of English: excepting a few really outstanding scholars who clearly love the subject matter (i.e., they really like the stories and dig at them the way the rank amateurs do), the professional work I have seen is mostly dismally prepared, with little or no insight into the material, drawn up by the hacks from the Modern Language Association who clearly loathe the society and culture that produced the material they constantly belittle and subvert by means of “deconstruction.” (I would share a quote about deconstruction from one of my college English professors, a man of considerable accomplishment who actually loves his subject matter, but the use of such Anglo-Saxon terminology is forbidden by the rules of the board; suffice it to say they he found the practice a means to empty a text of all an author’s intentional meaning in order to fill it with the biases and intents of the person engaged in deconstructing it.)

Let me know as soon as you pass the Bar. If I ever need a lawyer in Sydney, I want your mobile number!


----------



## Uminya

In response to the original, posted question of "Who would win: Smaug or a Balrog?" I would be inclined to ask what the exact tactical situation is between them. Since the question is specific as to which dragon is involved (but not which Balrog), I will presume that the question presumes the two meeting on an empty, barren field. In that case, I would presume Smaug to be the more likely victor, considering he has the benefit of flight and sheer mass.

I can, however, see a variety of situations where a Balrog could easily defeat Smaug, particularly if a bird were to whisper a certain weakness regarding the said dragon's breast  If the question is also expanded to include _any_ dragon, then I would still hold to the same opinion: it all depends on the circumstances.

However, considering the record of dragons killed compared to the number of balrogs killed (by elves, humans, dwarves, or otherwise), I would say that the chances are highly in favor of a dragon's victory. Both creatures are cunning and intelligent, but the dragons have size and armor in their favor.

EDIT: I read through Ithrynluin's post about the battles between balrogs and their foes, along with between dragons and their foes. I would argue that the balrogs at Gondolin killed perhaps hundreds of elves before they were taken down, as well as dragons such as Glaurung. Remember that he crushed Azaghal and was wounded, but most certainly killed the dwarven-king without dying; as I said, much of what occurs in a battle depends on circumstances. Bard would certainly not have killed Smaug, were it not for the thrush's message. Turin would certainly not have slain Glaurung, had he not ambushed the dragon from the ravine.


----------



## Úlairi

Alcuin said:


> *Úlairi*, as you well know since you parsed my post so closely, I never said you made any claims that Maiar did not inhabit other than those of the Incarnates. I built a case that they did, because you seem to have built a case that they did not inhabit dragons, at any rate.



Well...



Úlairi said:


> ...then you will see that I never disputed that some of the Dragons were initially Maiar...





Úlairi said:


> The dragons may have been Maiar *INITIALLY*...



I'm not going to worry about the rest. I was building a case that the _descendants_ of Glaurung *may NOT* have been.



Alcuin said:


> I believe I have elided this citation fairly. Feel free to disagree.



Unjustly? No. Unfairly? Possibly.



Alcuin said:


> In response, to your assertion that, “It was only Eru through the agency of the Valar that could allow an Elvish fëa to assume a new identity,” I say, _yes_, as long as the Elves and the Valar followed the path prescribed for them by Eru; but the whole point of Morgoth and Sauron and all their followers is they are _in rebellion_ against Eru. That this rebellion is doomed to failure before it began, that it is self-destructive, or that it produces bad fruit is beside the point: that’s what these characters are doing in Tolkien’s subcreation. Necromancy and sorcery are, by their very nature, forbidden in the real world, and they are likewise forbidden in Tolkien’s subcreation.



I completely agree. However the point I was purporting in relation to the omitted quotes was *not* that this _rebellion_ could achieve such ends through _choice_; but simply that it was beyond the inherent _power_ but more importantly _functional capacity_ (as a _being_ in Eä) of Morgoth (and Sauron) to do so, even as _Necromancers_. This is inferable through _parsing_ the quote.



> *The fëa is indestructible, a unique identity which cannot be disintegrated or absorbed into any other identity.*



I understand the meaning of the word _cannot_ as _infrangible_ and not "_shall not_", which would imply the _imposition_ of an _infractible_ Law of Eru. It is _infrangible_; not _infractible_.



> *...a 'houseless' Elvish fëa must have the power or opportunity to return to incarnate life, if it has the desire or will to do so. (Actually the Elves discovered that their fëar had not this power in themselves...*



Elvish _fëar_ are thus _per se_ *incapable* of _absorption_ into another identity due to an inherent _inability_ to do so. Even if Morgoth had such inherent power; he would nevertheless *still* be _unable_ to entrap _fëa_ inside _subcreated hröa_ as the _fëa_ did not have such power _per se_. The _incarnation_ of _fëa_ is *solely* the function of Eru and the Valar acted as His Representatives. This _rebellion_ is *not* simply an action contrary to the _wishes_ of Ilúvatar; but rather it is _impossible_ for Melkor to entrap _fëa_ within _hröa_. Melkor, as _subcreator_; is _incapable_ of achieving such ends.



Alcuin said:


> (BTW, the word _subcreation_ is Tolkien’s own to describe his _opus corpus_ (body of work). I believe you questioned where it had arisen, and asked about my use of it elsewhere. See “On Fairy Stories”, most easily found in _Tolkien Reader_.)



Thanks for that Alcuin, I gleaned as much as he also refers to himself as a _sub_-_creator_ in _The Letters of JRR Tolkien_ (_Letter_ #_153_). I've simply _re_-_coined_ the phrase, if you will, to extend its meaning to _creation in Arda by a will other than Eru's_. 



Alcuin said:


> I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your QED is flawed. You have failed to exclude incarnations other than balrogs. “If and only if” is proof; you demonstrate sufficiency, but not uniqueness. You have also failed to exclude the movement of balrogs, the “oldest [noparse][[/noparse]and[noparse]][/noparse] most potent” of Morgoth’s servants, into other forms: your argument would not, for instance, preclude a balrog inhabiting the body of a particularly large, intelligent monster: say, Ancalagon the Black, for example.



Understood. I _attempted_ to do this; and note the use of the word _incarnations_. The premise of a barrage of my posts before this is that Balrogs remained in _demon-form_; similar in nature to the _raiment of the Valar derived from their knowledge of Arda_. A major crux of my argument to _preclude_ other incarnations was that Maia who became _Incarnate_ _dwindled in force_; thus losing _inherent potency_ whilst the Balrogs remained stronger. What I have been waiting for as a potential _counter_-_argument_ that, if I had been arguing the case for Dragons (and I can't believe I'm doing this), is what exactly is the _nature_ of the effect upon their (the Balrogs) _potency_ due to the expenditure of Morgoth's _being_ to _dominate_ their wills. _Is domination by another will effective in reducing potency_?

As for your point about two Úmaiar possessing the same _hröa_, I'm *not* going to...



Alcuin said:


> ...jump to (or post) conclusions, I have not claimed that any balrog ever did do such a thing, only that you have not excluded it. You have, however, powerfully implied that anyone who made such a claim must be either a moron or some kind of raving lunatic.



...and call you a _moron_. I think its a *very* interesting idea; and no, I haven't _precluded_ this particularly. I am going to call you a _raving lunatic_ though, () as you've _decontextualized_ the proof. All I need to prove is _Balrogs > Dragons_, which is the point of this _entire thread_; and *NOT* _Balrogs > All other Úmaiar_. 



Alcuin said:


> I’m sorry, maybe I misunderstood the thrust of your argument. Clarity often suffers badly at the hands of competition if one’s goal is to overbear and defeat the ones around him; but it shines through cooperation.



_Cooperation_? How can two _opposing_ concepts be _resolved_ through cooperation? If I cooperated with those arguing _for_ Dragons then I would be _conceding_ that Dragons are greater than Balrogs; which is the _direct opposite_ of what I've been purporting.



Alcuin said:


> The large print is hard to miss, but sometimes the point is lost in the noise: “what I don't understand is a cogent and coherent point.” I am glad to learn, however, that you will allow *YayGollum* room to speculate that “_Mel jammed spirits into Dragons and they destroyed Gondolin.”_ It is always nice to be given room for one’s own thoughts and private speculations, even if others believe them misdirected: Sauron and Morgoth begrudged others this room of maneuver.



Yes, the only reason one has room to move is due to _unsubstantiated inferences from the text_. Such as presenting the concept that two _fëa_ possessing the same _hröa_ bears a contextual relationship with the purpose of this actual thread.



Alcuin said:


> Just between friends, might easily be mistaken for plainly insulting. This *IS* amateur hour: we _are_ amateur Tolkien scholars, even you. This is not moot court, either: winning at any cost is not conducive to open debate. You will frighten away the shy, and revolt those who have not the patience to deal with lawyerly revile. I am certain that, if you reflect upon it, you did not intend any such.



Yes, but *not* presenting the best possible argument for our case is the _context_ in which I was referring to it being _amateur hour_. By claiming that the usage of the word _amateur_ to mean that I consider myself _professional_ is absurd as it puts words in my mouth that simply never existed. Whilst you may _think_ that I consider myself to be so; that is *your* deduction about my _character_ and not from what was actually _conveyed_. 



Alcuin said:


> Let me know as soon as you pass the Bar. If I ever need a lawyer in Sydney, I want your mobile number!



I'll definitely tell you if I pass the Bar.


----------



## Bucky

Gothmog

- Slew Fëanor, greatest of the Noldor, at Dor Daedeloth.
- Slew Fingon the Valiant the High King of the Noldor on the plains of Anfauglith.
- Dragged Húrin into Angband after the defeat in the Nirnaeth Arnoediad.
- Slew Ecthelion and was finally slain in The Fall of Gondolin. 

*Well, this is quite a bit of revisionist history here......

Slew Feanor, BUT:

'Thus it was that he (Feanor) drew far ahead of the van of his host; and seeing this the servants of Morgoth turned at bay, and there issued forth from Angband Balrogs (note: plural) to aid them. ....Feanor was surrounded, with few friends about him. Long he fought on, and undismayed, though he was wrapped in fire (one Balrog does that?) and wounded with many wounds; but at last he was smitten to the ground by Gothmog."

This certainly does not sound like a one on one battle to me, just that Gothmog struck the finishing blow.

Next, there is no denying Gothmog had help versus Fingon:

'Then he (Gothmog) turned upon Fingon. That was a grim meeting. At last Fingon stood alone with his guard dead about him; and he fought with Gothmog until another Ballrog came up behindand cast a thong of fire about him. THEN Gothmog hewed him with his black axe...'

Tolkien makes it very clear that Gothmog needed the sneak attack of the second Balrog for Gothmog to defeat Fingon.......

Third, What is so great about dragging Hurin with all these chopped off orc arms clinging to him after he's been captured to Angband?
Is this some great accomplishment?
Any orc could've done this.


Next, who says dragons aren't Maiar?
They have some sort of 'spirit' in them......

This is a complex issue & difficult to sustain within the physical laws that Tolkien has established for Maiar to live in & incarnate themselves in within Arda, i.e., dragons reproduce down through the ages & may (but not certainly) die, but this statement Tolkien makes when Glaurung speaks to Turin on the bridge of Nargothrond MUSt be taken for it's careful wording:

'The suddenly he (Glaurung) spoke by the EVIL SPIRIT THAT WAS IN HIM....'

What was that 'evil spirit'?

There were 'greater' & 'lesser' spirits all around in the First Age, but Tolkien makes it clear in 'Myths Transformed VIII', HoME Vol 10 that these spirits are all Maiar to begin with.

So, it seems possible that dragons, possibly only speaking ones (do they all speak?) are indeed Maiar.

There's more on this:
*
But again - would Eru provide fëar for such creatures? For the Eagles etc. perhaps. But not for Orcs. ...

*As you say, they may not have 'fea'. However, these spirits where provided by themselves, already in existence......

As I said, the idea of Dragons being Maiar of whatever degree is hard to sustain.*

Melkor corrupted many spirits - some great, as Sauron, or less so, as Balrogs. The least could have been primitive (and much more powerful and perilous) Orcs; but by practising when embodied procreation they would (cf. Melian) [become] more and more earthbound, unable to return to spirit-state (even demon-form), until released by death (killing) , and they would dwindle in force. 

*It is pretty clear here that Tolkien is saying the power of the spirit would diminish as the creature, dragons in this case, reproduce. Yet, we see in Smaug the same powers that Glaurung had in 'dragon spell'. This certainly seems to be in disaccord.
Let us remember that Tolkien wrote the Hobbit way before much of the ways of Middle-earth and certainly these deep thoughts were in place. *

Then, we have this statement from Tolkien's Letter #144:

[/B]The Balrogs, of whom the whips were the chief weapons, were primeval spirits of destroying fire, chief servants of the primeval Dark Power of the First Age. *

If we look at the military history of Middle-earth in the First Age once Glaurung matures, it appears HE does the majority of the leading from the point on.......

The Battle of Sudden Flame:

'In the front of that fire came Glaurung....and Balrogs were in his train'

Also, as Ulari mentioned, Glaurung is then used in Western Beleriand to burn out all the lands about Maglor's Gap & between the 'arms of Gelion'..

In the Fifth Battle, Glaurung is in the 'Eastern Front', most likely leading that assault while Gothmog is clearly in the 'Western Front', obviously leading that assault where Fingon is.

After that, it is Glaurung, not Gothmog who takes out much of Western Belerian & sets up a kingship in Nargothrond.

Certainly, it cannot be argued that from his coming of age, Glaurung becomes Morgoth's #1 military leader.

I'm not saying Glaurung has authority over Gothmog or anything like that, but he certainly leads alot more campaigns.

However, in the terms of this discussion, just like arguements of who defeated who in a battle, it really means nothing.....

Saying that a dragon was beaten by a man while a Balrog never lost without slaying it's High-Elven or Maia opponent means NOTHING.

What Balrog took out an entire Dwarf Kingdom like Smaug?

Oh yeah, Durin's Bane....... 

But, he took a year while Smaug took out Erebor, Dale & Esgaroth in a matter of hours. (so what, again, lol)

None of this matters head to head - it's all relative comparisons, that's all.


And, while I'm at it, just how would a Balrog & dragon, ANY dragon, come to fight each other when they are both servants of Morgoth?

Smaug, specific to this discussion, versus Durin's Bane, when, where & why?

Personally, I think we don't see a single motivating factor for a dragon to take on a Balrog unless the Balrog was sitting on a mound of treasure & Durin's Bane was hanging out in empty halls in Moria. Smaug certainly wasn't going to roust DB from Moria & go dig up mithril himself, so no reason why they would fight.

But, let's say they did.....

Somebody said fire wouldn't hurt Smaug.
Why not? Smaug's an animal, not fireproof just because he spouts forth flame. He could certainly be blinded by fire..

And, everyone talking about Smaug's power. Does power hurt 'shadow & flame'?
I guess it must because Gandalf "threw down his enemy & he smote the mountainside in his ruin" (blew up?)

Also, does a sword of fire cut through a dragon's scales?
Cut Smaug's gems on his underbelly?

I'd say it's pick 'em.......

So, I pick, er, Smaug because Durin's Bane was a scaredy cat who ran away & hid in a cave for 5480 years. Intangibles.......

*


but the Sauron case is different in the sense that if it had been any other finger Sauron would've crushed Isildur's head - the inherent flaw there was his dependence on the Ring.

*Where'd you get that from Ulari?
Watching PJ's movie version?

Sauron was slain & THEN the Ring was cut off his finger:

"It (the Ring) was taken from him (Sauron) The strength of the Elves to resist him was greater long ago; and not all Men were estranged from them....... It was Gil-Galad, Elven King & Elendil of Westernesse who overthrew Sauron though they themselves perished in the deed; and Isildur Elendil's son cut the Ring from Sauron's hand & took it for his own."*


Also, if Durin's Bane had had wings, would he not have used them, instead of falling, a la Wile E. Coyote, into the bowels of the mountain? Just a thought...

*For almost 30 years, I was sure Balrogs had wings until somebody pointed this out:

'the shadow about it (the Balrog) reached out LIKE two vast wings'

Gandalf goes through "You cannot pass."

Now, read this CAREFULLY, you can see it's a metaphor for shadow:

''The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, BUT THE DARKNESS (which had just been compared to two vast wings) GREW. It stepped up to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and it's wings were spread from wall to wall; BUT GANDALF COULD BE SEEN GLIMMERING IN THE GLOOM.'

When I read this with the empasis, it hit me like a ton of bricks....

If Tolkien were here now, he'd be chuckling at the whole 'Balrogs have wings' controversy. *


----------



## Ithrynluin

What a marvelous, thorough analysis, Bucky. Touche on many points!

And yet another person who has gone from the winged to the wingless camp over the years. I don't think there's evidence enough to hit like a ton of anything, but it makes more sense.


----------



## Úlairi

Bucky said:


> Gothmog
> 
> - Slew Fëanor, greatest of the Noldor, at Dor Daedeloth.
> - Slew Fingon the Valiant the High King of the Noldor on the plains of Anfauglith.
> - Dragged Húrin into Angband after the defeat in the Nirnaeth Arnoediad.
> - Slew Ecthelion and was finally slain in The Fall of Gondolin.
> 
> *Well, this is quite a bit of revisionist history here......*
> 
> *Slew Feanor, BUT:*
> 
> *'Thus it was that he (Feanor) drew far ahead of the van of his host; and seeing this the servants of Morgoth turned at bay, and there issued forth from Angband Balrogs (note: plural) to aid them. ....Feanor was surrounded, with few friends about him. Long he fought on, and undismayed, though he was wrapped in fire (one Balrog does that?) and wounded with many wounds; but at last he was smitten to the ground by Gothmog."*
> 
> *This certainly does not sound like a one on one battle to me, just that Gothmog struck the finishing blow.*
> 
> *Next, there is no denying Gothmog had help versus Fingon:*
> 
> *'Then he (Gothmog) turned upon Fingon. That was a grim meeting. At last Fingon stood alone with his guard dead about him; and he fought with Gothmog until another Ballrog came up behindand cast a thong of fire about him. THEN Gothmog hewed him with his black axe...'*
> 
> *Tolkien makes it very clear that Gothmog needed the sneak attack of the second Balrog for Gothmog to defeat Fingon.......*
> 
> *Third, What is so great about dragging Hurin with all these chopped off orc arms clinging to him after he's been captured to Angband?*
> *Is this some great accomplishment?*
> *Any orc could've done this.*


 
This is all fundamentally a given Bucky, however the fulcrum upon which the discussion rested was simply the _inherent power_ of Balrogs and Dragons. It also turned *significantly* upon the aforementioned quote about the comparable intrinsic _potencies_ of the Urulóki and the Valaraukar. Indeed a host of Balrogs overthrew Fëanor and Fingon, but one Dwarf injured and one man slew the father of Dragons; another man slew the greatest of all Dragons and yet another did the same to the greatest of the Dragons of the Age. Ultimately such an argument bears no relevance to the discussion or to the determination of which was inherently the greater of the two. 



Bucky said:


> *Next, who says dragons aren't Maiar?*
> *They have some sort of 'spirit' in them......*


 
Yeah, read above. Who *did* say that?



Bucky said:


> *This is a complex issue & difficult to sustain within the physical laws that Tolkien has established for Maiar to live in & incarnate themselves in within Arda, i.e., dragons reproduce down through the ages & may (but not certainly) die, but this statement Tolkien makes when Glaurung speaks to Turin on the bridge of Nargothrond MUSt be taken for it's careful wording:*
> 
> *'The suddenly he (Glaurung) spoke by the EVIL SPIRIT THAT WAS IN HIM....'*
> 
> *What was that 'evil spirit'?*
> 
> *There were 'greater' & 'lesser' spirits all around in the First Age, but Tolkien makes it clear in 'Myths Transformed VIII', HoME Vol 10 that these spirits are all Maiar to begin with.*
> 
> *So, it seems possible that dragons, possibly only speaking ones (do they all speak?) are indeed Maiar.*


 
The key phrase from what you've stated above is "_to begin with_". As Úmaiar procreated their offspring _dwindled in force_. There is no mention of an evil spirit residing within Ancalagon or Smaug. There is also the quote from _The Children of Húrin_ that the_ evil spirit_ embodied within Glaurung was Morgoth's own; so arguably Glaurung was a mere _device_ of Morgoth. 



Bucky said:


> *There's more on this:*
> 
> But again - would Eru provide fëar for such creatures? For the Eagles etc. perhaps. But not for Orcs. ...
> 
> *As you say, they may not have 'fea'. However, these spirits where provided by themselves, already in existence......*
> 
> *As I said, the idea of Dragons being Maiar of whatever degree is hard to sustain.*


 
_Spirit_ = _fëa_. All Ainur had _fëa_. They simply assumed different _raiments_ or, like Morgoth, became ensnared in the _erma_ of Imbar through titanic expenditure of his own inherent being.



Bucky said:


> Melkor corrupted many spirits - some great, as Sauron, or less so, as Balrogs. The least could have been primitive (and much more powerful and perilous) Orcs; but by practising when embodied procreation they would (cf. Melian) [become] more and more earthbound, unable to return to spirit-state (even demon-form), until released by death (killing) , and they would dwindle in force.
> 
> *It is pretty clear here that Tolkien is saying the power of the spirit would diminish as the creature, dragons in this case, reproduce. Yet, we see in Smaug the same powers that Glaurung had in 'dragon spell'. This certainly seems to be in disaccord.*
> *Let us remember that Tolkien wrote the Hobbit way before much of the ways of Middle-earth and certainly these deep thoughts were in place.*


 
Woah there Bucky... let's not get ahead of ourselves. Where in the text does it stipulate that both Glaurung and his _dwindled procreation_ have the "_same powers_"???



Bucky said:


> but the Sauron case is different in the sense that if it had been any other finger Sauron would've crushed Isildur's head - the inherent flaw there was his dependence on the Ring.
> 
> *Where'd you get that from Ulari?*
> *Watching PJ's movie version?*
> 
> *Sauron was slain & THEN the Ring was cut off his finger:*
> 
> *"It (the Ring) was taken from him (Sauron) The strength of the Elves to resist him was greater long ago; and not all Men were estranged from them....... It was Gil-Galad, Elven King & Elendil of Westernesse who overthrew Sauron though they themselves perished in the deed; and Isildur Elendil's son cut the Ring from Sauron's hand & took it for his own."*


 
Good call. Haven't actually read the text in around six years. Damn movies ruin everything.  That also is an employment of great logic therefore by Tolkien as the removal of the Ring by Isildur would almost certainly have not disembodied Sauron unless the power of the Ring was so great that Sauron required it to physically exist within Arda.



The reason that I have chosen however, to post in this thread again, is because of an unbelievable excerpt from _The Book of Lost Tales, Part Two_ that would have ended this debate quite some time ago; and that my position that the comparison of inherent and relative natures and intrinsic power (or potency) of Balrogs and Dragons resulted in the conclusion that Balrogs were greater than Dragons was actually confirmed by Tolkien himself! Here it is (I can't believe that this quote was never found):



> _The Book of Lost Tales: Volume II - Turambar and the Foalókë_
> 
> *Now those drakes and worms are the evillest creatures that Melko has made, and the most uncouth, yet of all are they the most powerful, save it be the Balrogs only.*


 
And... there... it... is... 

Whilst I am aware that I was critical of chrysophalax earlier in this thread for quoting archaic references to do with the number of Balrogs in Morgoth's employ; my reasoning was that Tolkien actually _changed_ _his mind_ on the subject. There is no textual evidence whatsoever on this reference however that Tolkien ever reconsidered that Dragons may have been greater in inherent power than Balrogs. In fact all textual evidence points to the contrary - especially _Myths Transformed_. 

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Alcuin

The phrase “save it be the Balrogs only” is an old-fashioned (but not archaic) way of saying, “unless it is the Balrogs.” To mean, “only the Balrogs are stronger,” Tolkien would have written, “save the Balrogs only.” He isn’t saying every Balrog is stronger than every dragon, but he is saying that the average Balrog is stronger than the average dragon. The stronger dragons might best weaker Balrogs, for instance: that would not invalidate the phrase, “save it be the Balrogs only,” but it would invalidate the phrase, “save the Balrogs only.” 

Had Tolkien meant flat-out that Balrogs are stronger, he would have left out the difficult “it be”, which opens the possibility that some dragons might be stronger than some Balrogs. It’s as if he had written, _as a group, the rowdy O’Malley brothers are meaner and tougher than the McLean brothers, but some of the McLean brothers can still whip some of the O’Malley brothers.

_By the way, in another venue, *Gordis* has pointed out that in some versions of the telling, Isildur claims to have delivered the deathblow to Sauron. If that’s true, Elendil and Gil-galad beat him down, and then Isildur either delivered a _coup de grâce_, or else by Isildur’s cutting off the Ring, Sauron was “killed”.

Doesn’t this bring us back to the hypothetical, “Could Smaug have beaten Durin’s Bane?”


----------



## Úlairi

Alcuin said:


> The phrase “save it be the Balrogs only” is an old-fashioned (but not archaic) way of saying, “unless it is the Balrogs.” To mean, “only the Balrogs are stronger,” Tolkien would have written, “save the Balrogs only.” He isn’t saying every Balrog is stronger than every dragon, but he is saying that the average Balrog is stronger than the average dragon. The stronger dragons might best weaker Balrogs, for instance: that would not invalidate the phrase, “save it be the Balrogs only,” but it would invalidate the phrase, “save the Balrogs only.”
> 
> Had Tolkien meant flat-out that Balrogs are stronger, he would have left out the difficult “it be”, which opens the possibility that some dragons might be stronger than some Balrogs. It’s as if he had written, _as a group, the rowdy O’Malley brothers are meaner and tougher than the McLean brothers, but some of the McLean brothers can still whip some of the O’Malley brothers._


 
I've done a little research on this _contention_ of yours Alcuin and unfortunately it yielded little fruit. In my own opinion, such a passage can be interpreted both ways as "_save it be only_" can also infer "s_ave only_". I personally cannot resolve the logic in equating "s_ave it be only_" to "_unless it is_" and even with such a definition "_unless it is_" can indeed be equated to "_save only_" as well. In a sense I say tomàto and you say tomäto. However, I do understand the inference you have made here. I am willing to concede this point if you could direct me to somewhere on the net where it stipulates that the use of the phrase is not exclusive in nature as is the phrase "s_ave only_". The phrase "s_ave it be only_" does still appear to be exclusory. Your example leaves a lot to be desired, and whilst I do understand what you're attempting to convey; the above passage doesn't confer the meaning that the Balrogs are superior as a group to Dragons in the context that individually they are not. I think you've done a marvellous (albeit confusing) job of splitting hairs here. 



Alcuin said:


> By the way, in another venue, *Gordis* has pointed out that in some versions of the telling, Isildur claims to have delivered the deathblow to Sauron. If that’s true, Elendil and Gil-galad beat him down, and then Isildur either delivered a _coup de grâce_, or else by Isildur’s cutting off the Ring, Sauron was “killed”.
> 
> Doesn’t this bring us back to the hypothetical, “Could Smaug have beaten Durin’s Bane?”


 
Not yet Alcuin, not yet...

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Alcuin

Úlairi said:


> I've done a little research on this _contention_ of yours Alcuin and unfortunately it yielded little fruit. In my own opinion, such a passage can be interpreted both ways as "_save it be only_" can also infer "s_ave only_". I personally cannot resolve the logic in equating "s_ave it be only_" to "_unless it is_" and even with such a definition "_unless it is_" can indeed be equated to "_save only_" as well.


I did a Google search on the phrase (in quotes) “save it be”, and in the first few pages, I found a dozen “save it be” phrases that only make sense interpreted as “unless it is”. 

As a single example, consider this from Alfred Tennyson, _Idylls of the King_, “Lancelot and Elaine”:


> In me there dwells
> No greatness, save it be some far-off touch
> Of greatness to know well I am not great.


----------



## Úlairi

Alcuin said:


> I did a Google search on the phrase (in quotes) “save it be”, and in the first few pages, I found a dozen “save it be” phrases that only make sense interpreted as “unless it is”.
> 
> As a single example, consider this from Alfred Tennyson, _Idylls of the King_, “Lancelot and Elaine”:


 
Fair enough. However:



> In me there dwells
> No greatness, *save only* some far-off touch
> Of greatness to know well I am not great.


 
This seems to have a similar if not identical meaning to the phrase "_save it be_". The statement_: yet of all they are the most powerful, unless it is a Balrog_ can be interpreted quite simply to mean: _Balrogs are more powerful than Dragons_. I still don't quite see how it requires a differentiation. You'll have to forgive my stupidity here Alcuin. 

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Alcuin

Úlairi said:


> I still don't quite see how it requires a differentiation. You'll have to forgive my stupidity here Alcuin.


Not stupidity: poor pedagogy by secondary school and college English faculty renders quaint idioms unintelligible to native English speakers.


----------



## Úlairi

Alcuin said:


> Not stupidity: poor pedagogy by secondary school and college English faculty renders quaint idioms unintelligible to native English speakers.


 
LOL. Yeah, we had quite a bit of that at my school unfortunately. Well, as I can't honestly see any difference between the two I'll have to disagree to agree. I'm confident that you most likely know what you're talking about. Split hair or no split hair this however does not deny the strong supposition of Tolkien that his Balrogs where intrinisically greater than Dragons - be it an average Balrog fighting an average Dragon or not.

*Cheers,*

*Úlairi.*


----------



## Ryaca

I would like to bring to light the fact that the size comparison of the balrog to a human and Smaug to a human would give us the size difference between the two creatures. In my mind it would be like a goldfish(balrog) versus a very large catfish (Smaug). Not to say that size always matters but my vote goes to the dragon.


----------



## Elthir

Welcome Ryaca!

One question there might be: do folks agree on the heights of Balrogs?

Or even the widths?


----------



## Ryaca

Thank you for the welcome. I'm not sure about heights or the widths. I just used the Scenes from the movies for the size comparisons. Tolkien may have had something way different in mind.


----------



## Elthir

Ah, okay.

Personally I think the film Balrog was too large based on how I like to imagine the book Balrogath, but it's been my experience that readers don't really seem to agree about how large Durin's Bane was according to _The Fellowship of the Ring._

I believe (going on memory) some words in question (in the Moria encounter) are great/greater, or something fairly subjective even within the context of the sentences.

I think a Balrog can have a huge shadow, and shape it _like_ it is a thing of substance (not a mere lack of light), giving it an added sense of dread and fear, but such talk might pull this thread perilously close to a "wing debate"...

... the wing debate... the most dreaded of the Balrog's weapons


----------



## Azrubêl

Supposedly, Balrogs are more intelligent and have greater magic ability than Dragons. I'd vote for the Balrog.


----------



## Might_of_arnor

I understand that in morgoths days balrogs and dragons were of similar power, with the gothmog being the most powerful of the balrogs and most likely stronger than ancanlog the black (who I place above all balrogs apart from gothmog, due to his size and ability to fly). 

Smaug is considered to be the last of the great dragons and although he might not be as great as his older kin, I reckon he would win against a balrog but would also lose in the process. His ability to fly and breathe fire ( don't know if fire affects the balrogs as they are already on fire) but I also am in a bit of doubt, mostly due to the fact that balrogs are of maiar origin, I can't remember what stock Smaug is but the fact that he can sense Bilbo when he has the ring on (tho this is more likely due to bilbos scent, which is why I believe Bilbo survived because Smaug was intrigued by this new scent). 

All in all it would be fun battle to watch, but imo it's 50/50


----------

