# Thousands of Dwarves vs one Balrog ?



## Tumunzahar (Feb 13, 2004)

If I understand correctly the whole of the Dwarf population fled from Khazad-dûm because of one Balrog. Surely they would have been able to kill it ? Dwarves might not be as powerful as High Elves but surely a few hundred Dwarves must have been able to kill one silly Balrog if Elves could slay them all the time in the wars of Beleriand ?


----------



## Eriol (Feb 13, 2004)

They didn't have the heart. Remember Gimli's reaction at the Bridge of Khazâd-dûm, when he let his axe fall to the ground. The Balrog apparently had a "super-Nazgûl" effect of provoking great fear in all except Maia and people like Boromir and Aragorn (remember that Boromir also faced the Nazgûl at Osgiliath).


----------



## Lantarion (Feb 14, 2004)

My theory on the matter is that Balrogs could not be killed by conventional means; how could they, because they are composed of nothing but fire and shadow??
Therefore I hold that in order to slay a Valarauko the opponent must be able to interexist between and in both the Seen and Unseen worlds, in order to even be abl to harm the Balrog. And as the only beings to ever kill a Balrog were either very powerful Elves or Maiar, I find this theory to be pretty applicable.


----------



## Ol'gaffer (Feb 14, 2004)

The dwaves could have rigged the place so that the next time the balrog was on one of it's walks around Moria, the place would have caved in causing it to be trapped once again in the deep.

But, the cowards did not do so.


----------



## Morgoth (Feb 14, 2004)

> The dwaves could have rigged the place so that the next time the balrog was on one of it's walks around Moria, the place would have caved in causing it to be trapped once again in the deep


Remember, firstly, as Lantarion constantly reminds us, that the Balrog is not a physical being, and making something collapse under it's feet requires some kind of magic, as Gandalf displayed at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum. And secondly, I personally believe that the Balrog was never trapped where it was before Durin delved too deep, and it was there out of it's own choice. This is because that the surviving Balrogs 'fled and hid themselves in caverns inaccessible at the roots of the earth'. The Balrog chose not to leave, for it was fearful that the Valar were still out to get it, and knew not of the fate of Arda Marred. It was only when it saw that it's only challenge were stout little men, that it realised that it could go up and whomp some Dwarven butt. Still, the Balrog did not leave Moria, save to ascend to Zirakzigil, as it was fearful of the outside world.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 14, 2004)

Morgoth said:


> Remember, firstly, as Lantarion constantly reminds us, that the Balrog is not a physical being,


How is the Balrog not a physical being? It requires an _actual _body to interact with the physical world. 



Morgoth said:


> and making something collapse under it's feet requires some kind of magic, as Gandalf displayed at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum.


There was no 'magic' involved in the demise of Gothmog and Glorfindel's Balrog.



Lantarion said:


> Therefore I hold that in order to slay a Valarauko the opponent must be able to interexist between and in both the Seen and Unseen worlds, in order to even be abl to harm the Balrog. And as the only beings to ever kill a Balrog were either very powerful Elves or Maiar, I find this theory to be pretty applicable.


A plausible theory, Lant, but I still prefer my own belief that the Balrogs and the Dwarves just couldn't whip up enough courage to face a terror such as the Balrog surely was. Among the Children of Ilúvatar, I think there were only a handful of those who had the heart to do what Glorfindel and Ecthelion did.


----------



## krash8765 (Feb 14, 2004)

I agree with itrynluin that the dwarves couldnt defeat the balrog because they did not have the courage. When ecthelion defeated Gothmog didnt he kill him with his helmet driving it into his chest? I might be wrong about that but the fact is Balrogs must be physical creatures to be able to be killed. If the dwarves did not fear it so much then they might of been able to rally together and cut it down with their axes.


----------



## Aulë (Feb 14, 2004)

You must remember that their 'idol' (second only to Mahal), Durin III was killed by the Balrog. Durin III, being Durin the Deathless reborn would have held very high regard with all the Dwarves, and to see him killed by the Balrog (perhaps in a 1 on 1 battle with it) would have crushed their hearts.

The fire wouldn't have deterred them since Dwarves have high tolerance for pain, but probably the psychological effects of Durin's death would have made them cower in fear.

Remember in the Battle of Unnumbered Tears: when King Azaghal was slain in the battle against Glaurung, the Dwarves of Belegost gave up the attack, and went into mourning instantly.


----------



## Inderjit S (Feb 14, 2004)

It was Durin VI, not III.

The Dwarves may have fought on for a few years after his death.


----------



## Morgoth (Feb 14, 2004)

> How is the Balrog not a physical being? It requires an actual body to interact with the physical world


I meant, as Lantarion said, it exists between the seen and unseen worlds, much similar to the Army of The Dead.


> There was no 'magic' involved in the demise of Gothmog and Glorfindel's Balrog


Once again, I referred only to the fact that if the Balrog is not a physical being as such, then making something collapse under it's feet would've been very hard. This 'magic' only applied to the case of the Moria Balrog, and not to the cases of Gothmog or Glorfindel's Balrog, and I do not dispute the fact that no magic as such was used to dispatch them.


----------



## Lantarion (Feb 14, 2004)

Morgoth said:


> and I do not dispute the fact that no magic as such was used to dispatch them.


Then how do you explain an Elf, if he supposedly uses no inherent 'magic' or Art, or Skill, who exists completely in the Seen world being able to kill a being whose only tangible form in the Seen is ethereal?


ithrynluin said:


> How is the Balrog not a physical being? It requires an actual body to interact with the physical world


Yes you're right of course, and Valaraukar are physical beings, but only to an extent. To what extent if fire physical? It is not physical in the same sense that concrete or wood or linen cloth is physical, and yet it is viewable and tangible, ie.. it exists in the Seen. That is what the Balrog is, if we are to believe the traits assigned to the demons by Tolkien, that they were 'demons of fire and shadow'. There is no mention of any other matter, organic or othewise, as far as I recall.

Now it would appear that there would be a hitch in this theory because of the Bridge of Khazad-dûm scene; how can something which is composed of shadow and fire 'fall' at all? Well, there are two possibilities:
1) The Balrog actually did have more significant a physical form than just that of fire and shadow, a form which had a trait of mass and weight, or
2) Gandalf's Ainuric/Istaric (haha) 'magic' caused the Balrog's form to plummet.
I admit that option 1 seems the more plausible, at least to me; but that is not to say that balrogs were any easier to kill.


----------



## Khazad (Feb 15, 2004)

Lantarion said:


> My theory on the matter is that Balrogs could not be killed by conventional means; how could they, because they are composed of nothing but fire and shadow??
> Therefore I hold that in order to slay a Valarauko the opponent must be able to interexist between and in both the Seen and Unseen worlds, in order to even be abl to harm the Balrog. And as the only beings to ever kill a Balrog were either very powerful Elves or Maiar, I find this theory to be pretty applicable.




I dont think that only powerfull beings could kill balrog. You needed a weapon that was able to do it. Not a normal steel sword could have harm balrog, but "magic" weapons could. They could be in both worlds at the same time. Well, of course you needed to be powerfull to be able to face balrog and resist balrogs magic or evil aura. 

Why dwarfs could not do it? If balrog was able to kill their best fighters, mayby they lost their corage. Also, balrog was not stupid, it could find a nice spot to protect it from attack of dwarfs, like only couple dwarfs per time attack, no missile weapons, etc. Balrog did not eat, not sleep, just wait and do harm when needed.


----------



## Bombadillo (Feb 15, 2004)

you must remember that in the fifth battle, it were the dwarfs who withstood the forces of morgoth the longest, they fought draons, and where not afraid, while elves and men fled to their homes.
Dwarves even wounded glaurung! they did save the day. I think that dwarves, in their thousends could have slaid the balrog. If indeed it did not kill durin.



> last of all the eastern forces to stand firm were the dwarves of belegost, and thus they won renown. For the Naugrim withstood fire more hardily then either elves or men, and it was their costum moreover to wear great masks in battle hidious to look upon; and those stood them in good stead against the dragons. *And but for them Glaurung and his brood would have withered all that was left of the noldor*. But the Naugrim made a circle about him when he assailed them, and even his mighty armour was not full proof against the blows of their great axes.


----------



## Lantarion (Feb 15, 2004)

Bombadillo, you give compelling evidense for a position I also hold, that dragons are more easily to be wounded and killed than Balrogs. But what proof or indication do you have that the Dwarves could have done anything at all about the Balrog? If my theory is taken to be true (for the sake of argument), then I'd say that the Dwarves could have done nothing to harm the Balrog at all. They did not possess the skill of travel between the Seen and Unseen (evidently), and as far as I am aware they were not capable of producing 'magical' weaponry. They were, undoubtedly, the most skilled metalsmiths of all time, surpassing even the Noldor in many ways, and they were of course capable of creating the most finely crafted and high-quality weaponry imaginable. But high quality is not enough to kill an ethereal being with!


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 15, 2004)

Don't forget about Telchar, the greatest dwarven smith who wrought Narsil, Angrist and the dragon helm of Dor-lomin, all of which can be said to be 'magical'.


----------



## Bombadillo (Feb 15, 2004)

Lantarion said:


> Bombadillo, you give compelling evidense for a position I also hold, that dragons are more easily to be wounded and killed than Balrogs. But what proof or indication do you have that the Dwarves could have done anything at all about the Balrog?



erm, I think dragons are harder to defeat then balrogs, thinking about the amount of balrogs slain bij elves. there is only one story told about a dragon killed... and that is turin.
the eagles dealt with the rest of the great worms.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 15, 2004)

We know of three cases of Man slaying Dragon:

Turin/Glaurung
Fram/Scatha
Bard/Smaug

(And Eärendil/Ancalagon)

Balrogs were slain by Ecthelion, Glorfindel and Gandalf - two High Elves and a Maia.

I don't see any indication there that dragons were harder to defeat...more in favour of the Balrogs really.


----------



## Lantarion (Feb 15, 2004)

ithrynluin said:


> I don't see any indication there that dragons were harder to defeat...more in favour of the Balrogs really.


My reasoning exactly. 


ithrynluin said:


> Don't forget about Telchar, the greatest dwarven smith who wrought Narsil, Angrist and the dragon helm of Dor-lomin, all of which can be said to be 'magical'.


And you have a point with Telchar.. But 'magic' is such an ambiguous matter in Arda in the first place, it's very hard to categorize. E.g. the type of 'magic' one wuld think to be found in 'enchanted' items would not be of the same kind as the inherent Art in all Quendi, because one was inherent and the other was artificial. It is an extremely open-ended issue. 
But as I recall, only Angrist of those three examples you give was magical.. 
Narsil/Andúril was not magical as I recall, or it held no real magical qualities. It didn't even glow in the proximity of Dwarves, which many other swords did.
The Dragon-Helm was also not that magical (again as I recall, which might well be incorrect), it was certainly fear- and awe-inspiring because it looked so fierce and extravagant.
Angrist of course is an obvious exception, as it was the only blade which was fabled to cut through practically any material (after Gurthang?), and I really don't know what to say about that; except that perhaps there was no magic involved but perhaps Angrist was the peak of Dwarven weaponcraft and technology at that time, and was forged so cunningly that it was able to cut through metal.. Who knows.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 15, 2004)

Lantarion said:


> and was forged so cunningly that it was able to cut through metal.. Who knows.


Which might as well be called 'magic' , as I doubt there was a multitude of swords such as Angrist.


----------



## Bombadillo (Feb 16, 2004)

I don't see any indication there that dragons were harder to defeat...more in favour of the Balrogs really.

in my quote is stated that the dwarfs stopped the dragons who had otherwise killed ALL of the Noldor in the war:


> And but for them Glaurung and his brood would have withered all that was left of the noldor



this is in my opinion a strong evidence about, at least the strength of dwarves, and maybe also of the fact that dwarfs could have killed a balrog. 
In mty opinion if you killed of the phisical form of the balrog, you 'killed' him, or at least make him harmless, he would have to obtain a new body to physicly(damn sp, i'm tired) harm you (see gandalf, sauron). So no need of a 'magical weapon'


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 16, 2004)

Take heed of the how those passages are worded:


> And but for them Glaurung *and his brood* would have withered _all that was left of the noldor_


The Noldor were extremely weakened by that point, and Glaurung still had his _brood_. 

The one Balrog dealt with a thriving colony that was Moria. The total number of Balrogs is 7 at most. 

It is my belief that they are more unique and more powerful beings than the dragons.


----------



## Bombadillo (Feb 17, 2004)

ithrynluin said:


> The one Balrog dealt with a thriving colony that was Moria. The total number of Balrogs is 7 at most.
> It is my belief that they are more unique and more powerful beings than the dragons.



you must remember this:


> But he was not alone. For of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that alliancedown into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadfull among these spirits where the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in ME were called the balrogs, demons of terror.



these fire demons were probably once maiar of aule, and if i remember correctly most of the maiar drawn to melkor were of aule.
I can't get rid of the idea that there were a lot of balrogs. Can you prove me otherwise? I like to learn


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 17, 2004)

In the Book of Lost Tales mythology there _were_ indeed many Balrogs around, but they weren't considered Maiar at that point. Only later on were they 'converted' into Maiar and Tolkien stated there were 7 Balrogs max. Don't have the time to give you a quote, so you'll have to take my word on it. 



> these fire demons were probably once maiar of aule, and if i remember correctly most of the maiar drawn to melkor were of aule.


I see no reason to assume that most of 'Melkor's Maiar' were originally of the people of Aulë.


----------



## meneldor (Feb 19, 2004)

The balrogs were destroyed, save some few that HID themselves in cavernsat the roots of the earth. MOrgoth then loosed upon his foes the last desperate assault out of the pits of Angband, the winged dragons, that had not before been seen; and so sudden and ruinous was the onset of that dreadful fleet THAT THE HOST OF THE VALAR WAS DRIVEN BACK, FOR THE COMING OF THE DRAGONS WAS WITH GREAT THUNDER, LIGHTNING, AND A TEMPEST OF FIRE. But here comes Earendil, Thorondor and the rest of the greatest eagles that lived and already with the host of the Valar which fought through the day and as Tolkien describes a doubtful night. I do know that Eonwe, the greatest warrior aside Tulkas and Orome the great fought along side also. Tolkien clearly writes of the magnitude of the battle with the dragons and states that the balrogs were destroyed and some fled before the coming of the greatest host ever assembled. This was the greatest army ever assembled, yet they fought for quite awhile a undecided battle untill the end when they were victorious, with the final help coming from the great eagles and Earendil in his cool boat. Sounds pretty evident on who the tougher opponent was.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Feb 22, 2004)

meneldor said:


> The balrogs were destroyed, save some few that HID themselves in cavernsat the roots of the earth. MOrgoth then loosed upon his foes the last desperate assault out of the pits of Angband, the winged dragons, that had not before been seen; and so sudden and ruinous was the onset of that dreadful fleet THAT THE HOST OF THE VALAR WAS DRIVEN BACK, FOR THE COMING OF THE DRAGONS WAS WITH GREAT THUNDER, LIGHTNING, AND A TEMPEST OF FIRE. But here comes Earendil, Thorondor and the rest of the greatest eagles that lived and already with the host of the Valar which fought through the day and as Tolkien describes a doubtful night. I do know that Eonwe, the greatest warrior aside Tulkas and Orome the great fought along side also. Tolkien clearly writes of the magnitude of the battle with the dragons and states that the balrogs were destroyed and some fled before the coming of the greatest host ever assembled. This was the greatest army ever assembled, yet they fought for quite awhile a undecided battle untill the end when they were victorious, with the final help coming from the great eagles and Earendil in his cool boat. Sounds pretty evident on who the tougher opponent was.


Exactly.  In such enormous numbers (compared to the puny 7 Balrogs altogether) the dragons were a mightier brood. One on one, a dragon could hardly oust a Balrog IMHO.


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Feb 22, 2004)

I agree. Though Dragons were indeed very mighty, mightier still were the Balrogs, in my opinion. In a one-on-one fight, how could a Dragon possibly hope to win against a Balrog? And think also how _everyone_ who ever killed a Balrog died in so doing, while _everyone_ that killed a Dragon survived doing so. And think now, a Man killed the Dragon and lived in three occasions, and yet Gandalf, a Maia, died killing a Balrog, as did Ecthelion and Glorfindel.

Might not one begin to think that Balrogs were the greater opponent in light of these facts? I know I would.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 23, 2004)

Another silly dragon vs. balrog debate........

What's this one?

Number 68 or 69?  




_ they are composed of nothing but fire and shadow??_

'In the center was a form, of man shape, but greater'

There is a solid form in there, surrounded by 'shadow & flame'.
As previously stated, how would a weightless 'spirit' form jumping on the bridge at Kghazad-Dum cause it to crack completely & fall?



Also, I think you need to be VERY careful about presenting the events from the BOLT about Ecthelien & Glorfindel fighting the balrogs as 'cannonical' facts about balrogs as that story goes so far back & Toklkien changed so much of the history of Middle-Earth up tp the 2nd Age from 1917 to his death.....

To just take that story, unpublished by it's author & present it as "Balrogs can be killed this way or that way" is just not 'etched in stone' truth.


----------



## meneldor (Feb 23, 2004)

_But even as the vanguard of Maedhros came upon the the Orcs, Morgoth released his last strength, and Angband was emptied. There came wolves and wolfriders, there came Balrogs and dragons, and Glaurung father of dragons. The strength of the great worm was now great indeed, and ELVES AND MEN WITHERED BEFORE HIM, (NOTICE THE PLURAL), AND HE CAME BETWEEN THE HOST OF FINGON AND MAEDHROS AND SWEPT THEM APART. Later on it states " Last of all the eastern force to stand firm were the dwarves of Belegost, and thus they won renown. For the Naugrim withstood fire more hardily than Elves or men.. And but for them Glaurung and his brood would have WITHERED ALL THAT WAS LEFT OF THE NOLDOR. Page 212 of TurinTurambar, then the warriors of Nargothrond went forth, and tall and terrible on that day looked Turin, and the host was upheld,as he rode on the right hand of Orodreth. But greater far was the host of Morgoth than any scouts had told, and NONE BUT TURIN DEFENDED BY HIS DWARF-MASK COULD WITHSTAND THE APPROACH OF GLAURUNG. OK, so an elf could fight one on one with balrog, but fled before Glaurung._


----------



## Bucky (Feb 23, 2004)

But, the point of the discussion is why thousands of dwarves couldn't or didn't stand up against one balrog, not another _'Would A Balrog Or a Dragon Win A Fight'_ debate......
That debate is as pointless as debating whether a machine gun or a bazooka is better in combat.......

Elves fighting dragons, that's obviously in the 'Seen' world & strictly a strength thing.

Balrogs are Maiar, existing like High Elves in both the 'Seen' & 'Unseen' at the same time & therefore High Elves have a great advantage that sheer numbers alone won't help.

Comparing the strengths & abilities of a powerhouse monster like a dragon & a spirtual dynamo like a balrog is like apples & oranges.


----------



## meneldor (Feb 24, 2004)

yeah Bucky, maybe we should get back to the discussion at hand. I feel the arguement of balrog v.s dragon could be argued till the end of the internet with no clear definitive answer to rest on. maybe certain dragons gave certain people more problems as the same with balrogs. enuff said.


----------



## Lantarion (Feb 24, 2004)

meneldor said:


> yeah Bucky, maybe we should get back to the discussion at hand. I feel the arguement of balrog v.s dragon could be argued till the end of the internet with no clear definitive answer to rest on.


Hah, well there is a thread which tackles the issue here..  
But good idea, let's stay on topic.


----------



## Aglarband (Apr 3, 2004)

ithrynluin said:


> Among the Children of Ilúvatar, I think there were only a handful of those who had the heart to do what Glorfindel and Ecthelion did.


Dwarves are not the Children of Ilúvatar. But I do beleive that Dwarves have a risitance to fire ,since they are children of the earth, as they killed a large amount of Dragons in the battles against Morgoth. I think that the lose of Durin was too much for the dwarves and the rumour of Durin's Bane was enough to scare even their stout hearts.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Apr 4, 2004)

Dwarves are the adopted children of Eru.


----------



## Lantarion (Apr 4, 2004)

Heh didn't notice this bit before : 


Bucky said:


> 'In the center was a form, of man shape, but greater'
> 
> There is a solid form in there, surrounded by 'shadow & flame'.


The association you make is between the words 'form' and 'shape'; neither has anything to do with solidity. Carbon dioxide has a form, it doesn't make it solid!


----------

