# Sauron and Durin's Bane Were Best Buddies



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 19, 2012)

Okay, maybe they weren't best buddies, but I think it's clear that they were in league. I saw in another thread people were discussing if Sauron could get Durin's Bane to join him, well, hate to shatter your discussion, but he already had. Gandalf said there were black _uruks _from Mordor in Moria. Boom. Just wanted to let everyone know that.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 19, 2012)

Ah, the sound of crickets chirping in my ears......


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 19, 2012)

Get lost Bucky. We don't need your kind on here.


----------



## Gandalf White (Feb 19, 2012)

Bucky said:


> Ah, the sound of crickets chirping in my ears......


 
Judging by the title of the post, not even the crickets are talking about this one Bucky. ;*)


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Feb 19, 2012)

Not to be rude but Bucky's been here for 11 years so I think his 'kind' is welcome on this forum. 

I don't know that Sauron could control the Balrog. Maybe when he had his Ring and if he would have gotten it back, but not otherwise. This link gives a lot of good info:

http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TAB4.html


----------



## Gandalf White (Feb 19, 2012)

Erestor Arcamen said:


> I don't know that Sauron could control the Balrog. Maybe when he had his Ring and if he would have gotten it back, but not otherwise. This link gives a lot of good info:
> 
> http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/TAB4.html


 
No control, even with the Ring. 

I would assume BtB is referencing more of an alliance of sorts. Which may be possible, though not provable. 

I will have to look over your link a little later.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Feb 19, 2012)

I have a few other links as well:

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

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

Both are interesting.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 19, 2012)

There's no proof whatsoever....

But trying to discuss things around here lately with some people isn't even fun, just a big bummer....

Okay, I read all three essays..

The first, well all it quotes is long outdated, much revised texts that Tolkien dropped in favor of different final plans, so I really don't get the author's point, other than 'Tolkien considered it at one point but ultimately rejected it.'

The second, makes the most sense.

The third, total conjecture.

All seem to miss the point of Myths Transformed #7 where Tolkien states inequitably that 'Morgoth corrupted many spirits, 'some greater, like Sauron; and some lesser, like Balrogs' ~ they're simply not equal..

And another thought: Sauron _might_ not be the greatest of Morgoth's servants....

Ainulindale plainly calls him 'the greatest of the Enemy's servants who have names. What unnamed ones are therefore greater?


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 19, 2012)

Thank you for the links Erestor. They were helpful. Especially the first one.


----------



## Troll (Feb 20, 2012)

I imagine it would be difficult to have any political affiliation when you've been trapped in the long dark of Moria for centuries, even after rousing yourself. I doubt the Balrog ever left Moria, even after awaking.

If it had, I'm sure _somebody_ would have noticed. Elrond lives in walking distance from the West-gate (which had remained closed for a very, very long time as of the Fellowship's arrival), and Lorien is pretty much on the East-gate's doorstep. If the Balrog had ventured out through the east gate - and it probably could not have fit through many of the passages of Moria, leaving it open to question as to whether it could even physically get to the west gate - Galadriel would probably have mentioned such a detail to the White Council at some point.

It could even be that Galadriel was somehow preventing the Balrog from leaving, or that it was wary of her presence... She is, after all, the second-most powerful Elf ever to live.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Feb 20, 2012)

How do you think it would have gotten in to Moria? And remember, the Balrog was NOT nearly as tall/big as PJ made it to be most likely.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 20, 2012)

Erestor: Appendix A.. Durin's Folk...

'It came to pass that in the middle of the Third Age Durin was again it's king, being the sixth of that name (the Dwarves indeed believe that it was Durin himself returned from the death - added by me). The power of Sauron, servant of Morgoth, was then again growing in the world, though the Shadow in the Forest that looked towards Moria was not yet known for what it was. All evil things were stirring. The Dwarves delved deep at that time, seeking beneath Baranzinbar for _mithril,_ the metal beyond price that was becoming yearly harder to win. Thus they roused from sleep* a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth. Durin was slain by it, & a year after Nain I, his son; & then the glory of Moria passed, & it's people were destroyed or fled far away.'

*'Or released from prison; it may well be it had already been awakened by the malice of Sauron.' 

Quenta Silmarillion; Of The Voyage Of Earendil & The War Of Wrath:

'The Balrogs were destroyed, save for some few that fled and hid themselves in caverns inacessable at the roots of the earth.'

It should be noted that 'some few' is a really poor choice of words, most likely added by Guy Kay and/or Christopher Tolkien for the published Silmarillion.

HoME states that JRRT Tolkien had determined that the likely total of Balrogs left when Morgoth returned from exile with the Silmarils was 'three or seven'.....

Therefore, it must be seven. Why? 

Gothmog & Ecthelien killed each other; minus one....
Glorfindel and another Balrog; minus two....

If there is only three, with Durin's Bane, that leaves zero, and the above quote says 'the Blarogs were ALL destroyed, save SOME FEW.."

So, three is out..

So, with seven, we've already accounted for two, leaving five...

So, if all were destroyed, save some few, what is 'some few' out of 'all destroyed' when there's only five to begin with? 

One? Like Durin's Bane?

I'd say that's most likely...

Where would another be hiding unheard of for two ages if 'the malice of Sauron' awoke DB?

We must remember The Silmarillion is not to be taken literally word for word, but as traditions handed down for thousands of years & then recorded by Bilbo......

That's actually the way Tolkien came to realize it.

So no, there's not a couple more Balrogs hiding out there IMHO.



BTW: if you've never read the Appendices at the end of ROTK, A & B contain lots of great info & are a fun read!


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Feb 20, 2012)

Yeah I've read all the appendixes mult. times, I wasn't questioning if there were multiple balrogs but just when Troll was talking about how it couldn't have escaped by the East or West Gate, how else it would have gotten in and also that it was most likely not as huge as PJ made it to be.


----------



## Prince of Cats (Feb 20, 2012)

Erestor Arcamen said:


> How do you think it would have gotten in to Moria? And remember, the Balrog was NOT nearly as tall/big as PJ made it to be most likely.


 
The Balrog was fleeing, trying to save itself. There must have already been extensive natural caves at the site of Moria, into which the Balrog hid. That he was released while the Dwarves mined deeper for Mithril suggests to me that perhaps, in its terror, the Balrog collapsed tunnels upon itself so that the host of Valar couldn't find him there.

Does the War of Wrath pre-date the settlement of Khazad-Dum?


----------



## Bucky (Feb 20, 2012)

No, I don't think it was more than the 9-13 foot tall esimates others have made & Galin's quotes 'tend' to back up.....

Of course, as your linked essays demonstrate, folks will take all sort of obscure outdated or distorted textual evidence to back up whatever bizarre theories they want to prove ~ regardless of whatever the latest & most finally settled thoughts Tolkien had on a matter.

As for DB never leaving Moria, this alone makes one speculate that he had no connection to Sauron. If he _was_ under orders from Sauron, then he'd make one heck of a Third Age weapon, wouldn't he?

Heck, for all intents & purposes, DB took out one, if not the, greatest challenge & opponent Sauron had out there: Gandalf.....

And this only happened because Gandald wandered into Moria of his own accord.

Had DB been under Sauron's command, why not send him out _after_ Gandalf ~ or Saruman when Sauron thought Saruman was an enemy?
Saruman wasn't far away, or hard to find.....

DB actually did come close to leaving Moria once: He was lurking in the shadows in The Battle of Azanulbizar. Dain saw him in 'the shadow of the Gate' after slaying Azog.

So, something was keeping Durin's Bane from leaving Moria & I doubt it was Sauron's orders....

Most likely, it was the same thing that made him flee there in the first place & hide for 5400 years encased in stone: fear of the Host of the West. How would DB know they had departed over the sea?

How would it know otherwise?

Do balrogs speak?

What would this Balrog speak, having been out of touch for 2 Ages?

The Black Speech had not been invented...

What did Morgoth & his folk speak?

Quenys? Sindarin?

Westron, the Common Speech that Orcs spoke in the Third Age, also had not been invented...

I suppose the communication between DB & the orcs there was not very good...

Except in DB 'perceiving their thoughts', as he did with Gandalf's spell outside the Chamber of Mazarbul.


----------



## Sulimo (Feb 20, 2012)

Everyone has brought up some interesting points. I have a couple questions, and to Bucky I apologize if I am not up on the most recent Tolkien lore, in general I am more interested in Tolkien's influences. 

Couldn't DB change shape. Why would his size be an issue. I thought all Maiar (Balrogs) could do that? I just feel that he just chose to lay low for a while. Which leads to my second thought. We are talking about a couple of millennia as long passage of time. For a spirit that has existed since before time began I suspect that this passage of time was, but the passing of an eye blink. This makes me have to reevaluate what limitations it may have. I am suspicious that it would have a problem with a language barrier. It very likely played a key role in the creation of the goblins in the first place. I think it would be okay, when it comes to understanding them. I do however, agree that it was a fear of the hosts of the west holding it in check, and that was for a good cause. Because a emissary from the West is who meted out its doom.


----------



## Troll (Feb 20, 2012)

Prince of Cats said:


> The Balrog was fleeing, trying to save itself. There must have already been extensive natural caves at the site of Moria, into which the Balrog hid. That he was released while the Dwarves mined deeper for Mithril suggests to me that perhaps, in its terror, the Balrog collapsed tunnels upon itself so that the host of Valar couldn't find him there.
> 
> Does the War of Wrath pre-date the settlement of Khazad-Dum?


 
What His Royal Felinity said. 

Khazad-dum _was_ settled prior to the War of Wrath; in the description of the coming of the Naugrim to Beleriand and their cities Nogrod and Belegost, there's some mention of the greater houses of the Dwarves in the east, including Khazad-dum. However, in the millennia after the War of Wrath, Moria became much larger and deeper - so I'm guessing the Balrog never came in through either door. Natural events such as earthquakes, flooding, or erosion could well have sealed off the passage through which the Balrog gained entry to the bowels of the earth, not to mention the possibility that it sealed itself in to discourage pursuit.

Even if the Balrog _is_ small enough (or compressible enough) to exit through either gate, the fact remains that Elrond and Galadriel are in the vicinity of the two gates. I'm pretty sure if Durin's Bane exited at any point, they would have mentioned this to Gandalf. Gandalf's reaction to the suggestion that they go through the mines would therefore probably have been along the lines of "not if the fate of Middle-Earth depended on it, you crazy bastard; let's take our chances with the Gap of Rohan."

Did Dain actually _see_ the Balrog, or simply perceive the palpable terror filling Moria? I don't have my books at hand.



Bucky said:


> Where would another be hiding unheard of for two ages if 'the malice of Sauron' awoke DB?


 
Why, under Mount Mindolluin of course! :*D That'd be a hell of a surprise for the Telcontari...


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Feb 20, 2012)

Maybe the other Balrog was in Nardor and that's why Nardor didn't make it to any of the books, it was wiped off the map by the Balrog before anyone could do anything about it...


----------



## Elthir (Feb 20, 2012)

Or Nardor as the name of a Balrog? that works!

But then again it did for a dragon :*D


----------



## Bucky (Feb 21, 2012)

Perhaps the other Balrog's name was Darth Bane. ;*)


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 21, 2012)

I do not think Sauron was commanding the Balrog. I think it might have been similar to the Sauron-Saruman relationship, except with more independence from the Balrog. Sauron obviously felt comfortable enough sending his soldiers there.

Even if Sauron was commanding the Balrog, why would he reveal it? He would want to save it until the greatest need, or great need, such as a siege of Lorien or Minas Tirith or something along those lines. Remember, he kept the Winged Nazgul secret until his attack on Minas Tirith.


----------



## Elthir (Feb 21, 2012)

Bucky said:


> Quenta Silmarillion; Of The Voyage Of Earendil & The War Of Wrath: 'The Balrogs were destroyed, save for some few that fled and hid themselves in caverns inacessable at the roots of the earth.'
> 
> It should be noted that 'some few' is a really poor choice of words, most likely added by Guy Kay and/or Christopher Tolkien for the published Silmarillion.



Actually this is one of the quotes that concerns Balrog numbers (in some way) that Christopher Tolkien left alone. Although you added the word 'for' it seems (as the actual sentence reads: '... were destroyed, save some few...'), and Christopher Tolkien did not end the sentence after the word _earth_, as his father had.

In any case this passage was written before _The Lord of the Rings,_ when seemingly thousands of Balrogs existed, and were created by Morgoth -- a concept which persisted at least into the early 1950s, after _The Lord of the Rings_ was 'finished' (as far as being written).



> HoME states that JRRT Tolkien had determined that the likely total of Balrogs left when Morgoth returned from exile with the Silmarils was 'three or seven'.....



While I agree that it seems likely enough that Tolkien drastically reduced the number of Balrogs in the later 1950s, the scenario is more complex than a brief reference might allow -- not that you said otherwise -- and I realize one doesn't have to delve into many or all of the external details in every post, or would want to! The idea of very many Balrogs appears to have started before 1920 even, and so was probably the idea in Tolkien's head for decades before he ever wrote the now famed marginal note. 


With respect to the notion of 3 or 7 Balrogs, we have an alteration of a passage in _The Annals of Aman _(which alteration does not divulge the number of Balrogs in any case, but merely erases the impression of very many Balrogs), and but one marginal note to the same text, Tolkien's: 'There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed.'

OK, and given that this hails from the later 1950s (at least) it is arguably Tolkien's last idea concerning Balrog numbers. But Tolkien did not, in any case, revise all existing passages that still referred to very many Balrogs. Christopher Tolkien did, for the 1977 Silmarillion. In the following examples, the first version is the way JRRT left things, and the second shows how Christopher Tolkien revised the implication of very many Balrogs, leaving the matter vague in the Silmarillion.



> _'Wherefore each embassy came with greater force than was agreed, but Morgoth sent the greater, and they were Balrogs. Maidros was ambushed...' _Of The Siege of Angband (Quenta Silmarillion) *[]* '... but Morgoth sent the more, and there were Balrogs.' Of The Return of the Noldor (The Silmarillion)
> 
> _'Sauron came against Orodreth, the warden of the tower, with a host of Balrogs.' _Of the Ruin of Beleriand And the Fall of Fingolfin (Quenta Silmarillion)* []* '... named Gorthaur, came against Orodreth, the warden of the tower upon Tol Sirion.' Of The Ruin Of Beleriand (The Silmarillion)
> 
> _'There came wolves and serpents, and there came Balrogs one thousand,...' _Of the Fourth Battle: Nírnaith Arnediad (Quenta Silmarillion) *[]* 'There came wolves and wolfriders, and there came Balrogs, and dragons...' Of The Fifth Battle (The Silmarillion)




The first description I quoted above (from the QS tradition) survived into the Later Quenta Silmarillion despite a number of other post-Lord of the Rings revisions to this chapter. The second example (Orodreth and etc) also was not revised -- with Tolkien even altering §143 of the chapter, but not the 'host' of Balrogs passage. 

The third example 'survived' too, but noting CJRT's description under _The Last Chapters Of The Quenta Silmarillion_, it looks like JRRT never really got around to truly revising this chapter in any case (_The Grey Annals_ contains _'Balrogs a thousand'_ §230). This is also possibly why 'save some few' still existed, as the end of the tale was never really fully updated, outside of a number of cursory corrections.

So I realize that one could simply say, well Tolkien just missed these references, or never got around to them, and given the marginal note to _Annals of Aman_ he arguably would have altered each reference as he had done in the Annals of Aman. That's not unreasonable, but I think I have at least shown the scenario to be a little more complicated than a brief reference might allow; and I would add that we don't know if Tolkien was truly going to commit to a specific number _in the actual narrative itself_. 



> Therefore, it must be seven. Why? Gothmog & Ecthelien killed each other; minus one.... Glorfindel and another Balrog; minus two....
> 
> If there is only three, with Durin's Bane, that leaves zero, and the above quote says 'the Blarogs were ALL destroyed, save SOME FEW.."



While this sort of reasoning makes enough sense, it's also a mixing of texts and conceptions which are possibly 20 years apart, as far as the text goes: in other words, the idea here is that it can't be 'three' when one compares a later concept (with a drastically reduced number of Balrogs) -- with a statement that Tolkien wrote when he imagined a host of Balrogs.


From Tolkien's perspective however, three, seven, or 'many' Balrogs even, was still open to him. Of course from this angle one could say _very many things_ were still 'open' to Tolkien! simply because the legends of the Elder Days were still a work in progress.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 21, 2012)

Good points...

It's still doubtful there were any other Balrogs out there unnoticed all that time.

Agreed?


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 21, 2012)

I think it is fair to say that there were a lot more than 7 Balrogs. Why you ask? Because it states that "some few" escaped. Few would have to be three, maybe two. And if Gothmog and Glorfindel's Balrog were killed, then that puts the grand total at 5 during the War of Wrath. Now if three escaped, they would not be referred to as few, because relative to the number killed, they would be the majority. Does 20 sound appropriate enough to refer to 3 as few? 

Also how many Balrogs did Feanor slay I wonder.


----------



## Troll (Feb 21, 2012)

My money is on "zero." I get the impression that they ganged up on him and didn't give him much of a chance to do more than defend himself before squishing him... :*(


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 21, 2012)

He fought on long and undismayed, even though he was surrounded. And he was the mightiest of the Eldar...by far. Hurin was the mightiest man ever. If Fingon could give Gothmog a fight, wouldn't it be fair to say Feanor killed at least one?


----------



## Elthir (Feb 21, 2012)

Within the assumption that 'at most 7' certainly was Tolkien's latest and 'final' idea (the remaining references to very many Balrogs still awaiting correction, in theory)...

... then I think 'some few' is just a remnant of an old idea (given that we know it was written when Balrogs 'one thousand' were created by Morgoth). So in my opinion, I don't think one necessarily needs to factor this phrasing in. Ecthelion killed one, Glorfindel another -- that leaves five at the War of Wrath, perhaps four of which were slain at this time.


I've even seen the idea (which I'm not saying I agree with) that Tolkien was thinking of altering Glorfindel's Balrog to another kind of demon, given certain 'evidence' in a late text about Glorfindel (which I won't go into now). It's not impossible of course, but I tend to doubt this, given the long external history here, and the internal fame of this battle.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 21, 2012)

Galin said:


> Within the assumption that 'at most 7' certainly was Tolkien's latest and 'final' idea (the remaining references to very many Balrogs still awaiting correction, in theory)...
> 
> ... then I think 'some few' is just a remnant of an old idea (given that we know it was written when Balrogs 'one thousand' were created by Morgoth). So in my opinion, I don't think one necessarily needs to factor this phrasing in. Ecthelion killed one, Glorfindel another -- that leaves five at the War of Wrath, perhaps four of which were slain at this time.


 
*I would tend to agree with this.

I also don't see the slightest shred of evidence outside of total conjecture that Feanor killed a single Balrog.

"The mightiest warrior may be slain by one arrow."

The best evidence against Feanor slaying any Balrogs is that the best anyone, including Olorin (Gandalf), a Maia did, was break even, that is die at the same time as they slew their opponent, and that was in one on one combat.

Feanor fought 'many' at the same time.....

While Fingon held off Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs, and therefore apparently the highest in spiritual stature & power, he quickly succumbed when a second Balrog joined the fray.

Therefore, I find it highly unlikely Feanor did anything but hold off his own death for a while versus actually killing any Balrogs in such dire straights.

Sulimo; As far as Balrogs changing shape:

The Simarillion; Ch 3; Page 47:

'And in Utumno he (Melkor) gathered his demons about him, those spirits who had first adhered to him in the days of his splendour and became most like him in his corruption: their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, & terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named in Middle-earth in later days.' 

This descrption matches quite well with that od Durin's Bane in FOTR. (Yes, Wings = darkness, but let's not hijack this thread on that point, lol) :*o

So, I think, considering that it's clear that evil causes Ainur to lose the ability to change shape (see both Morgoth & Sauron), that Balrogs stay in this shape forever.

And, they really didn't change size....

The darkness around them just grew or shrank in comparison to the fire within them, as described on the Bridge of Khazad-Dum.

They were 'man-size, but greater' - so, we've assumed, like Sauron, a height of probably 9-13 feet. 

*


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 22, 2012)

Let me just clear some things up. Dain actually did see Durin's Bane. Dain says to Thrain, "Only I have looked through the shadow of the Gate. Beyond the shadow it waits for you still; Durin's Bane". 

We don't know where the other (at least) two Balrog's are hanging out. Perhaps in the Blue Mountains. Mount Gundabad? Who knows? 

Nardor was the realm in the far south founded by Maglor leading the surving Numenoreans to safety. However, you may be on to something there Erestor. I wouldn't doubt that there was a Balrog or two taking part in Sauron's assault on Nardor.

Darth Bane was the name of a Sith Lord, in an entirely different universe. 

Feanor was the mightiest by far, and he wasn't even fighting Gothmog until Gothmog came up and smote him. So I think we can assume that at least 1 Balrog died by the hand of Feanor.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 22, 2012)

Bard the Bowman said:


> Let me just clear some things up. Dain actually did see Durin's Bane. Dain says to Thrain, "Only I have looked through the shadow of the Gate. Beyond the shadow it waits for you still; Durin's Bane".
> 
> We don't know where the other (at least) two Balrog's are hanging out. Perhaps in the Blue Mountains. Mount Gundabad? Who knows?
> 
> ...


 
*1. Actually, I think it's safe to assume Dain saw DB, but the text does not precisely say that. It is entirely possible Dain just felt his presence there. But I agree, DB was most likely seen. The fact remains, however, if 'on the doorstep', then why didn't he join the battle, especially if in league with the Orcs Sauron had sent to 'people' Moria?


2. No interest in this Nardor stuff ~ no idea where it came from; but I'm guessing some fan fict.

3. I think everybody knows 'Darth Bane' was a joke. At least if they have a sense of humor. ;*)

4. We don't know there were ANY other Balrogs, let alone 2. We've seen the evidence presented already, especially by Galin. Mount Gundabad would be a poor choice for a Balrog to hide. It was the meeting place for the 7 houses of the Dwarves in 'ancient times' & then later the Goblin Capital. Plus, it was sacked in the Dwarf & Goblin War. One would think something might've been noticed.

5. I doubt it very much; I've already presented the point of view as to why Feanor probably didn't kill a single Balrog: the kill ratio wasn't very good one versus one. A Maia & two Elves only killed a single Balrog one versus one & all three died in the battle. Yet another Elf totallt unskilled in battle is supposed to take one down with multiple Balrogs assailing him? I think not.

*


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 22, 2012)

Gees Bucky you just like to oppose me even when you agree with my points inside. 

Dain saw Durin's Bane. No question about it. Why he didn't join in? Who knows. Perhaps he feared the Valar or the Eagles or something. Perhaps he didn't feel like risking the fight, which wasn't his and wasn't threatening him. Who knows? 

Mount Gundabad a bad hiding place? What about Khazad-dum a bad hiding place? The most powerful dwarf kingdom. Come on, they hid themselves in the roots of the mountain as they fled in terror and I highly doubt they were choosy about their location.

Feanor was the greatest and mightiest Noldor to ever live. Doesn't that count for something? He fought long it says. I'm not saying for a fact he did, but it's within the realm of possibility.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 22, 2012)

I'm not saying Mount Gundabad was a bad hiding place per say; I'm saying it was a bad place to hide & stay hidden without being found, that's all.

As for Feanor, I think the evidence against Feanor killing a Balrog is rather overwhelming & has already been presented _twice._ Is it possible? Anything is possible when dealing with texts as generally 'vague' & unfinished as The Silmarillion was ~ and not published by JRR Tolkien himself. Heck, folks are constantly reinterpreting his own works these daze anyhow!

But, when looks at the fact a Maia couldn't even kill a single Balrog without dying himself, it's rather doubtful any Elf, even the great Feanor did that by himself when outnumbered by multiple Balrogs.


----------



## Elthir (Feb 22, 2012)

In the _Qenta Noldorinwa_ of 1930 the battle with Feanor was fought on the plain that stretched to the feet of the mountains upreared over Morgoth's halls. 'There was the First Battle. Great was the slaughter of the Orcs and Balrogs, and no tale can tell the valour of Feanor or his sons.' Here Feanor is still wounded by Gothmog however.


At this point (again keeping in mind that the Balrogs exist in great numbers and are not Maiar), one might get the impression that Feanor himself killed at least one Balrog, even though it's not stated specifically.


However Tolkien would change the details here, especially 20-ish years later, and the slaughter is with respect to 'orcs and werewolves' (Grey Annals), and Feanor is slain later when he makes a tactical error and Balrogs become involved. Tolkien still imagined many Balrogs at this time (early 1950s), but as we know there is no mention of him slaying any -- just like in the Qenta even.


But again, especially if we are to imagine only seven ever existed, I would agree with *Bucky *here, as I guess I prefer to imagine that Feanor fought long and well but took out no Balrogs -- admittedly also because I think it works well for 'twice' as many Balrogs to perish in the War of Wrath as had been slain in the Fall of Gondolin (assuming that only two were slain in any theoretical, finished and updated version of _The Fall of_ _Gondolin_, that is) -- which is 'only' four, but still.


At some point after these demons became Maiar, maybe Tolkien thought about _drastically_ reducing their numbers because he imagined them as even more powerful than before (they were named 'Demons of Might' after all) -- thus _one thousand_ or a 'host' of Maiarian Power-demons might be too much for the good guys? 

Maybe.


----------



## Troll (Feb 23, 2012)

It's far from "beyond question" whether anyone saw anything. "Only I have looked through the shadow of the Gate. Beyond the shadow it waits for you still; Durin's Bane."

1) Of course the Gate casts a shadow; it is a physical object in a lighted place, and there are probably few light sources in Moria at the time. Basically all of Moria is in shadow. When Tolkien is explicitly speaking of the big evils, he often capitalizes Shadow, so this case is indefinite. Given the immediate context, however - shadow of the Gate - unless a Gate is evil in and of itself, the shadow is purely physical.

2) If the Gate is said to have a distinct shadow, then if the Balrog is anywhere inside Moria, it is "beyond the shadow."

3) If the Balrog were that close to the Orcs, wouldn't they freak the eff out? The Orcs fled before it when the Fellowship passed through.

As for Feanor slaying Balrogs... He was great in spirit, but he was an artist, not a fighter. If he had ever been in a proper fight with anyone else of any account I'd lend more credence to the idea that he could slay Balrogs in a many-on-one fight, and indeed it redounds to his greatness that he wasn't just squished underfoot immediately. However, if Feanor had managed such a feat, I guarantee Tolkien would have mentioned it. In the earlier "many Balrogs" concept, slaying one wouldn't be a thing big enough to be worth mentioning; in the later "few Balrogs" concept, slaying one would have been absolutely a cause for massive props. After all, the Elves turned Ecthelion's name into a battle cry, and Ecthelion did his thing centuries after the demise of Feanor.



> 3. I think everybody knows 'Darth Bane' was a joke. At least if they have a sense of humor. ;*)


Don't you mean "Darth's Bane," the Balrog that killed King Darth of Nardor? XD


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 23, 2012)

Maybe the Balrog came up after the slaughter of the orcs. And Dain was described as a changed dwarf, very grim and grey in the face after he saw Durin's Bane. And he speaks of his experience through the gate as in fear. 

I think you are using your Maiar vs. Balrog argument a little too much. Gandalf was not a mighty Maiar. His strength was in wisdom. Feanor was the greatest of the Noldor in anything; speed, power, might, skill, anything you can think of. Yes, greater than the heroic Balrog slayers Ecthelion and Glorfindel. Feanor's majesty was such that even the greatest of the Maiar, Eonwe, bowed to him. Gandalf was also in the guise of an old man, which limited his power. Again, I'm not saying Feanor DID kill a Balrog. I'm just saying that it is well within the realm of possibility that he slew one before being killed, because of his might and skill and determination and fearlessness and fiery spirit. 

Again, I think at least 20 Balrogs existed because of the phrase, "a few". They are spoken of as if the majority perished and a small portion escaped. That would not be the case if 2 escaped and 3 died. The wording wouldn't match it.


----------



## Elthir (Feb 23, 2012)

Bard the Bowman said:


> Again, I think at least 20 Balrogs existed because of the phrase, "a few". They are spoken of as if the majority perished and a small portion escaped. That would not be the case if 2 escaped and 3 died. The wording wouldn't match it.



And again 'save some few' merely reflects the idea of a huge amount of Balrogs, even Balrogs 'one thousand', and exists in a passage written in the mid to later 1930s -- surviving within a section of the Silmarillion that was never really revised at any later point except for a few cursory changes -- which is not my characterization of the end chapters of _Quenta Silmarillion_, but Christopher Tolkien's in _The History of Middle-Earth.

_
You are obviously free to feel bound by 'few', but others will not be, including Tolkien himself I would add. Christopher Tolkien likely chose to retain this for the 1977 Silmarillion because it was at least written by his father, and did not imply thousands of Balrogs in any case -- given that Christopher Tolkien _did_ revise any surviving reference that implied very many Balrogs.


----------



## Elthir (Feb 23, 2012)

Bard the Bowman said:


> '(...) Feanor was the greatest of the Noldor in anything; speed, power, might, skill, anything you can think of. Yes, greater than the heroic Balrog slayers Ecthelion and Glorfindel.'



Hmm, this is an interesting point noting the existing texts. The Silmarillion includes the description: '_For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: __in valour__, in __endurance__, __in beauty,__ in understanding, in skill, __in strength__ and subtlety alike: of all the Children of Iluvatar, and a bright flame was in him.'_

If I read the information correctly this description is taken from _The Annals of Aman_ of the early 1950s. Christopher Tolkien notes that this praise of Feanor is not in _Quenta Silmarillion_ (generally speaking Christopher Tolkien also used the Annals in his constructed _Silmarillion_). But compare what is said of Feanor here, by colour if you like, to description elsewhere...

... according to the _Quenta Silmarillion_ tradition (as also in the 1977 Silmarillion): 'Of these Feanor was the mightiest in skill of word and hand, more learned in lore than his brethren; in his heart his spirit burned as flame. Fingolfin was the strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant. Finrod was the fairest, and the most wise of heart...' (Finrod was changed to Finarfin).

[the earlier version of these Annals (but still called _The Later Annals of Valinor_ since there is an even earlier version) included praise for Feanor too: 'Feanor was the mightiest Gnome of all that have been, wordcrafty and handcrafty, fair and strong and tall, fiery of mood and thought, hardtempered, undaunted, master of the will of others.'] 

And here's what Tolkien added to the second edition of 1965 (in Appendix A), thus well after all these descriptions above were written: 'Feanor was the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and most self-willed.'


Anyway, as both 'Silmarillion' descriptions appear in the same phase of writing, perhaps the very high praise from the Annals was to be tempered somewhat by the comparison beween Feanor, Fingolfin, and Finarfin -- which was 'retained' for the _Later Quenta Silmarillion I_ (I say retained because a form of this had already appeared in the _Quenta Silmarillion_ of the 1930s). 


And granted the seemingly 'lesser' praise (but still great considering that arts and lore are huge in the Elven-mind, and Tolkien's mind as well I would add) could be due to a desired brevity here, in the Appendices...

... but in any case, as I say, it's interesting to me to see both these descriptions written at about the same general time, each from different traditions -- as they were imagined initially at least, considering that the Annals appear to be, in parts, approaching something more like _Quenta Silmarillion_ in this phase.

Anyway, just a possibly interesting aside.


----------



## Elthir (Feb 23, 2012)

Sorry to triple post but, just to add...


If Feanor is the mightiest 'in valour', how then is Fingolfin the most valiant? or if 'in strength' why then is Fingolfin the strongest? Or if 'in beauty' why then is Finarfin the fairest? Maybe this is a matter of authorship and opinion: _The Annals of Aman_ were said to be written by Rumil in the Elder Days, and held in memory by the Exiles, and parts remembered were set down in Numenor before the Shadow fell upon it. 

Could it be that Rumil esteemed Feanor so highly? while another author rather noted the greatness of Fingolfin and Finarfin in certain areas.

Just a thought!


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 23, 2012)

Perhaps. But I think it might be describing the virtues of the individual, rather than their physical attributes. Feanor was not an admirable character. Maybe Fingolfin is the most valiant because he was noble too. 

Maybe Finarfin was literally the fairest and would never cheat. Ha!

Anyway, Tolkien himself states when Feanor dies that he was the mightiest of the Noldor. Quite a claim.


----------



## Elthir (Feb 23, 2012)

Bard the Bowman said:


> Anyway, Tolkien himself states when Feanor dies that he was the mightiest of the Noldor. Quite a claim.



Interestingly, this statement also hails from the tradition of the Annals as is not in the corresponding section of the Quenta Silmarillion.

Anyway, however mighty Feanaro was in arms compared to Finwe Nolofinwe, I'm still voting for 'no Balrogs' here -- especially in light of the reduced number, as I say.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 23, 2012)

Mirror mirror on the wall;
Who's the greatest Elf of all?
Doesn't matter what Tolkien said;
face a Balrog and they're all dead. :*p


Bard:

You say that Olorin wasn't that powerful a Maia...

Tis' true.

But....
:*D

Are you saying that a mere Elf, no matter how strong is more powerful?

Gandalf tells Gimli that he is dangerous, more dangerous than anything he will come up against unless he is brought before the Dark Lord himself. Yes, I realize this is Gandalf the White, but still. Plus, The Letters say something I'll have to try to dig up..

And on the topic of Maiar strength, I'll keep hammering this one home until it sinks in:

Myths Transformed VIII:

'Melkor corrupted many spirits - some great, as Sauron; or LESS SO, as Balrogs.'

So, if Olorin was a 'lesser' Maia, so were the Balrogs...

I know folks don't like it, but there it is, page 410, HoME Volume 10.

and, the Istari's strength was 'veiled', not gone.


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 23, 2012)

Okay. But other elves actually are recorded slaying Balrogs. One actually took out the greatest Balrog, so is he greater than Gandalf? They both died, but both took out their opponent. Ecthelion's enemy was greater than Gandalf's.

Your Maiar strength point helps, well if anyone, me. The Balrogs were of lesser power, therefore easier to defeat than say Sauron. 

Gandalf also wasn't that great in magical power or might (great in Middle-Earth certainly, but in comparison to the other Maiar no). His strength was wisdom. 

I mean look, the Witch-King breaks his staff and defeats him at Minas Tirith (kidding of course. Another brutal error that makes me want to strangle PJ). But seriously, at the encounter at the gate Gandalf THE WHITE seems in a stalemate at least, if not beaten. He fell silent, and was only roused by Pippin. And this was simply due to a mere man-turned-wraith. 

I agree the Istari's power was veiled. But also forbidden was direct displays of power. 

If this old wizard, who can be given a battle (possibly lose) by a man-turned-wraith, can defeat a Balrog, then what might the mightiest and most skilled elf do? Even if he is attacked by 4 Balrogs. Let me list the facts.

- Feanor is the mightiest and most skilled elf ever
- Gandalf THE GREY defeated a Balrog
- Gandalf THE GREY is not that strong
- Gandalf THE WHITE is more powerful and dangerous than Gandalf THE GREY
- Gandalf THE WHITE was silenced by the Witch-King
- Ecthelion defeated Gothmog
- By this logic, Ecthelion is certainly greater than Gandalf THE GREY at least (took out tougher opponent, same result)
- Feanor is great than Ecthelion
- Feanor fought on long and undismayed
- The Balrogs would have been less than Gothmog

So, it would appear well within reason that Feanor could have killed a Balrog in that famous battle.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Feb 23, 2012)

> Perhaps. But I think it might be describing the virtues of the individual, rather than their physical attributes. Feanor was not an admirable character. Maybe Fingolfin is the most valiant because he was noble too.



I don't think he was just talking about virtues as who that person was but it also had to do with physical virtues. Fingolfin challened Morgoth himself so when Tolkien said he was the strongest, this proves it for me right there. As the text states, Morgoth was _afraid_ of the duel:



> "Fingolfin beheld, as it seemed to him, the utter ruin of his people, and the defeat beyond redress of all their houses. Therefore he did his silver arms and took his white helm and his sword Ringil and his blue shield set with a star of crystal, and mounting upon Rochallor he rode alone to Angband’s gate and challenged Morgoth to come forth and Morgoth came though he was afraid of the duel. Now Morgoth swung his hammer Grond down like a bolt of thunder but each time Fingolfin leaped away and seven times he wounded Morgoth with Ringil, but at last Fingolfin grew weary and Morgoth bore down his shield upon him, three times was Fingolfin crushed to his knees and three times he got up again but the last time he stumbled and fell backwards and Morgoth set his foot upon Fingolfin’s neck and there the High-King of Elves died but with his last strength he stroke Ringil into the foot of Morgoth.”


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 23, 2012)

Look, it clearly states in the Silmarillion, that Feanor was the mightiest. Period. That says it for me.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Feb 23, 2012)

Bard the Bowman said:


> Look, it clearly states in the Silmarillion, that Feanor was the mightiest. Period. That says it for me.



Not a very convincing argument to me...


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 23, 2012)

Hmmm. So if the author states that someone was the mightiest, that doesn't convince you he was the mightiest? Wow, great reasoning there.

Being valiant doesn't mean you're the strongest or mightiest. It just means you're the most courageous.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Feb 23, 2012)

Bard the Bowman said:


> Hmmm. So if the author states that someone was the mightiest, that doesn't convince you he was the mightiest? Wow, great reasoning there.
> 
> Being valiant doesn't mean you're the strongest or mightiest. It just means you're the most courageous.



Well the quote above doesn't say JUST the most valient of Fingolfin, it also says the strongest, so no, your argument doesn't convince me.



> Fingolfin was the *strongest*, the most steadfast, and the most valiant


----------



## Elthir (Feb 23, 2012)

If Pippin can kill a troll, simple comparative mightytude isn't always the main issue on the battlefield in any case. And incidentally, Glorfindel really won his battle without being slain... ah, in a sense [cough]... as the Balrog only grabbed Glorfindel by his hair on the way down, 'killing' him.

Cheater!

Glorfindel was way ahead at that point! See the long prose _Fall of Gondolin_ in _The Book of Lost Tales_.






Of course, that wasn't a Maia-type!


Never mind then :*D


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 23, 2012)

Galin I don't really think it matters how someone is killed. If they are killed, they are killed. You could make the same case against Turin. 

"Well Glaurung had him in a fair fight. Turin only killed him because Glaurung didn't know he was there blah blah blah blah." 

Don't forget, it was a troll chieftan that Pippin killed, and the only reason I can swallow that is because Tolkien explicitly stated it. 

Actually, thanks for bringing up the Glorfindel point Galin. It supports my claim even more. Glorfindel had the edge in the fight. And if Glorfindel, although undoubtedly mighty, can beat a Balrog and almost survive, what might Feanor do? But again, I personally think a kill is a kill, on the battlefield. 

markoffc, it is you who are taking the terms too definitely. Mightiest is far clearer than "strongest".


----------



## Bucky (Feb 23, 2012)

Bard the Bowman said:


> Okay. But other elves actually are recorded slaying Balrogs. One actually took out the greatest Balrog, so is he greater than Gandalf? They both died, but both took out their opponent. Ecthelion's enemy was greater than Gandalf's.
> 
> Your Maiar strength point helps, well if anyone, me. The Balrogs were of lesser power, therefore easier to defeat than say Sauron.
> 
> ...


 
*Okay, here we go...

Point one. If you actually read the account of Gandalf versus the Lord of the Nazgul (never once referred to as the Witch-king of Angmar in the 6 books, BTW, but whatever, we all know him by that) it NEVER, EVER gives ANY idea of weakness on Gandalf's behalf. This is simply ingrained in folk's mind due to:

1. PJ's absurd 'breaking of the staff scene' in the EE's and

2. Denethor's taunting of Gandalf several days earlier in the council with Faramir.

go ahead, reread it; I just did...

In fact, if anything, Gandalf gets right in his face, ready for a showdown!

Point two on Gandalf versus the Witch-king...

I searched & I searched, but aside from rereading the entire TLOR, I cannot find the quote ~ perhaps Galin can... ;*)

It's rather obscure, but says, at the approach of the War of the Ring:

Sauron lent His greatest servant (however it's phrased) great power.. He was only a shadow of the might he had become.' (very paraphrased)
This has led to threads that theorized that W-k might've had his one of the Nine Rings back on his finger.......

Point being in any case, W-k had become much more powerful at the time of his confrontation with Gandalf at the Gate.

So, your whole line of logic here falls apart because Gandalf was never silenced by The Witch-king in the first place...

In the second, we cannot even say that Gothmog had any significant more power than any other Balrog. He was 'Lord of Balrogs', but somebody had to have the job. Just as Thorin was Lord of the House of Durin. Did that make him a better Dwarf? Hardly.

Chances are he was slightly more powerful, but he's still of the same 'house' or 'family' of spiritual beings', so it's most likely not that significant an upgrade. Certainly, Gothmog was much closer to the other Balrogs in spiritual stature than to Sauron for example.....

I think the point you're avoiding, Bard is in every case, which is a 100% sampling, the best case scenario is a one versus one confrontation ending in a double death...

Are we supposed to believe that Feanor is so extra-special great that he alone can not only take on multiple Balrogs and hold them off for hours, but slay one?

I think the holding off multiple Balrogs alone for possible hours is a fairly fantastic feat in & of itself.

But, this & the fact we've established that there were likely only 7 Balrogs at this time leaves very little likelihood that Feanor offed any himself.





*


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 23, 2012)

PJ's staff breaking was a joke Bucky. I know it didn't actually happen. 

But you remember at the gate where flames run down the blade of the Witch-King's sword? And it states Gandalf remained motionless and said nothing. And Pippin called out and Gandalf stirred, as if out of a trance. This to me says that Gandalf was affected in some way. Matched at least. 

Gandalf himself admitted he "may" be overmatched. I understand he may have just been agreeing with Denethor to avoid conflict, so I don't assign any value to this point. 

I agree with you 100% that the Witch-King was more powerful at the Gate than earlier. I do not believe that he obtained his ring. I think it was just being closer to Mordor and the Shadow and Sauron. After all, it is stated that they are weaker the further away they are from their master. Example. Gandalf is more powerful than all Nine in daylight when they met at Weathertop. And was giving a good account of himself at night. So they were much weaker the further away from Sauron they are. 

Witch-King of Angmar in the six books? Perhaps not, but very close. Most of the time he's referred to as the Black Captain or Lord of the Nazgul, but Gandalf says "King of Angmar long ago". Boom.

Sauron giving the Witch-King great power doesn't mean anything, even if it is a ring. Gandalf had Narya. They both had external factors.

Gothmog was clearly the greatest Balrog. I'm sorry, but spots are not picked at random just because someone has to be it. Sauron was the Lieutenant because he was Melkor's greatest servant. Gothmog was referred to three times (the three times I found his name) as Lord of the Balrogs, and once as High Captain of Angband. I think no one has any doubt that Gothmog was the greatest challenge of any Balrog. However, this is also irrelevant, and would have no bearing on my argument. 

I am not avoiding any point. I always answer points. I never ignore them like others do. However, we are talking about Feanor here. We only have one instance where Feanor encounters a Balrog(s) in combat, and I think we all agree he performed pretty impressively. You said so yourself. 

But, to hold off 4, maybe 5 Balrogs off for a long period of time, how could he do that? Were they tormenting him? Or did he kill 1, maybe 2? 

Look, all I'm trying to say is that he certainly was capable of killing one, even when fighting several. This is Feanor, the "Spirit of Fire", greater than any Elf that ever lived. Galadriel was second. 

I understand why you reject this idea so vigorously. It's not because you think Feanor is incapable of such a feat. It's because if this were the case, it would absolutely rip your "7 Balrogs" theory to shreds.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 23, 2012)

It's not my theory on 7 Balrogs, Bard...

It was tolkien's final thought on the subject.

And, Sauron wasn't necessarily Morgoth's greatest servant, he was the greatest servant with a name

I've got to find that quote.

I don't think that Sauron gave W-k the ring either; it's was just a theory...

I know the quote says something about 'lending him power' or something like that.

I'm not sure if the thread was posted on this site or another though. :*rolleyes:


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 24, 2012)

Whatever Bucky. Whether or not Sauron was the greatest servant is irrelevant. 

And the 3-7 quote is not from the final draft of the Silmarillion, which seems to contradict it with its description of the War of Wrath.

P.S. Feanor also had some of his companions with him. It says few, but still some. They could have served as a distraction.


----------



## Elthir (Feb 24, 2012)

Bard the Bowman said:


> Actually, thanks for bringing up the Glorfindel point Galin. It supports my claim even more. Glorfindel had the edge in the fight. And if Glorfindel, although undoubtedly mighty, can beat a Balrog and almost survive, what might Feanor do? But again, I personally think a kill is a kill, on the battlefield.



This post from me was a bit tongue-in-cheek actually -- but the end has a bit of a point to it anyway: Tolkien never described this battle in any detail after the Balrogs had become Maiar.

This was a battle between an Elf and an old-conception Balrog, from the same story where Tuor slayed or slewed more than one Balrog himself, for example.



> And the 3-7 quote is not from the final draft of the Silmarillion, which seems to contradict it with its description of the War of Wrath.



*Bard*, there's no final draft of _Quenta Silmarillion_. It has been pointed out that the War of Wrath description dates from the mid to later 1930s -- it survives within a chapter that was never again truly revised or updated by JRRT himself, according to Christopher Tolkien (again, outside of a few cursory corrections). 

Behind the statement 'save some few' we find the old conception of Balrogs once again: very many, created by Morgoth (not Maiar).


However the marginal note (and the revision to the text upon which it was written) concerning the drastic reduction in Balrog numbers (3 at most 7) is dated as not earlier than the later 1950s, around 1958-ish or later.


----------



## Elthir (Feb 24, 2012)

Bard the Bowman said:


> (...) This is Feanor, the "Spirit of Fire", greater than any Elf that ever lived. Galadriel was second.




Concerning the term 'great' there's a rather late note with JRRT using the word -- in author's note (note 14) to The Shibboleth of Feanor:



> 'These two kinsfolk, the greatest of the Eldar of Valinor,* were unfriends for ever.'
> 
> *Who together with the greatest of all the Eldar, Luthien Tinuviel, daughter of Elu Thingol, are the chief matter of the legends and histories of the Elves.
> 
> The nightingale! The two kinsfolk above are Feanor and Galadriel.



And an even later statement (about as late as it gets), with Christopher Tolkien paraphrasing a late adumbrated note: '... set down in the last month of his life. In this he emphasized the commanding stature of Galadriel already in Valinor, the equal if unlike endowments of Feanor.'



Thus Galadriel probably slew 3 Balrogs, or at most 7, before visiting Doriath ;*)


----------



## Bucky (Feb 24, 2012)

You know, I have a $65 book that goes chapter by chapter through the Silm & will tell you where every single passage was dug up from out of each various text Tolkien wrote?

...has a chart for every chapter. I should dig it up.

Basically, the author just analizes The Simarillion & breaks it down so HoME isn't quite such a disaster & is only a in a semi-coherent, lesser mess IMHO. :*confused:

Honestly, he takes every passage in The Simarillion & breaks down where the source came from.

It's amazing. Sometimes a single sentence or two is a hybrid of 3-4 sources. :*rolleyes:

So, it's really even tough to say anything in The Silm is _'canon',_ as JRR Tolkien did not actually write it; Plus, his son has expressed regrets about certain of handlings of 'filling in the gaps' but rather, a studious look at HoME would be moreso & especially what Tolkien's views were as he got to volumes 10-12.


----------



## Elthir (Feb 24, 2012)

Bucky said:


> You know, I have a $65 book that goes chapter by chapter through the Silm & will tell you where every single passage was dug up from out of each various text Tolkien wrote?
> 
> ...has a chart for every chapter. I should dig it up.



I have _Arda Reconstructed_ as well, but technically it doesn't detail everything, although it's quite thorough. Interestingly, Chistopher Tolkien himself explained* to the author (before seeing the revised version of this book however) that he did not record _every_ authorial change in _The History of Middle-Earth_ alone. In other words, as long and as detailed as _HME_ is, Christopher Tolkien's (personal) _History of the Silmarillion_ is even more detailed.


I do not agree with all of the opinions given by the author of _Arda Reconstructed_, which is generally a separate matter from the sourcing of passages however. I usually do my own sourcing if I have the time anyway; as helpful as _AR_ might be in this area, for myself I would rather consult the actual texts in _HME_.

__________

*despite this, it should be noted that no version of this book was approved by the Tolkien Estate, nor did Christopher Tolkien provide help in its construction or publication. The author of _AR_ avoided copyright concerns (seemingly) with the percentage of quotations used.


----------



## Troll (Feb 24, 2012)

Bucky said:


> Sauron lent His greatest servant (however it's phrased) great power.. He was only a shadow of the might he had become.' (very paraphrased)
> This has led to threads that theorized that W-k might've had his one of the Nine Rings back on his finger.......


 
I thought the Nazgul were unable to remove their Rings? :*confused:

In any case, I dimly recall the bit you're talking about. Though it should be clear at this point that my understanding of the books is pretty idiosyncratic, I always understood it to mean that Sauron had somehow invested the Witch King with his own power, without any transfer of rings going on.



Bard the Bowman said:


> But, to hold off 4, maybe 5 Balrogs off for a long period of time, how could he do that? Were they tormenting him? Or did he kill 1, maybe 2?


 
As a fencer, I can tell you exactly how a humanoid armed with sword and shield would do such a thing:

1) dodge
2) parry & wrist-flick

Blocking a direct blow from a flaming giant with your shield would probably break your arm, so the shield would only be useful to divert glancing blows and to cover your flank. The idea in an epee or saber bout where you are completely overmatched by the strength and reach of your opponent is to keep at the outside of your enemy' reach and force them to fully extend to strike you; this gives you an opportunity to parry and riposte to their wrist or extended forearm. (In foil, all you need do is parry and riposte with a lunge, but foil is way artificial and alien compared to any real fight.)

When outnumbered, the battle would consist of a constant giving of ground to avoid encirclement. Basically you'd be hoping that you'd tire out your opponents before you yourself became exhausted.



Bucky said:


> Basically, the author just analizes The Simarillion & breaks it down so HoME isn't quite such a disaster & is only a in a semi-coherent, lesser mess IMHO.


Ha.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 24, 2012)

Galin:

I did not know CT had written a 'History of the Silmarillion'

Honestly, I only knew about CoH because my daughters saw it at the bookstare & got it for me for my birthday....

Is it a highly chopped up
& footnoted?

And, I agree with you on Arda Reconstructed as far as the opinions? Is it a commentary or just a 'dissection of the construction of the book'?

I guess part both....

Troll:

On the Nazgul & their Rings:
They are in thw Wraith world; slaves to Saron now ~ I guss Bard might call them 'Maiar;' ~ and in a sense, they are the least of that spiritual being now (that would take a long discourse to lay out with my typing skills, so just trust me).

At the point they entered the wraith world, I believe ~ and this is all just hitting me now ~ I believe they no longer needed the Rings any longer, being enslaved to Sauron now.

Even though Sauron has lost the Ring of Power, Tolkien makes some statements that the Ring is still His & the Ringwraiths are subject to him ~ period.

Gandalf tells Frodo in 'The shadow o
f the Past.':

"The Nine he has gathered to himself; And the Seven, or the Dragons have consumed them." (paraphrase, but close)

So, yes Sauron has the Nine Rings of Men.... How convient since he now has only nine fingers. :*eek:


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 24, 2012)

Why would I call the Ringwraiths Maiar Bucky? I don't think that at all. 

As far as the possibility of Sauron giving the Witch-King a ring, it certainly did not need to happen. Melkor for instance "put his power into Carcharoth", so I see no indication or need for a ring transfer to have occurred between Sauron and the Witch-King.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 24, 2012)

Relax, Bowman...

I think, since we've discussed long about ~ and I believe you understand the whole bizness about the different 'levels' of 'spiritual beings' entering into M-e in the beginning on the Smaug War of Wrath thread, you'd catch where I was going on the whole 'Nazgul being a type of Maiar' angle.

They truly are...

Tolkien spells out in 'Myths Transformed' that there were Orc Captains in the First Age that were 'the least' of the 'Corrupted spirits' that Melkor had seduced...


We've all concluded Glaurung had some sort of one of these spirirts, possibly even equal to Balrogs, in him. So, they were out & about then.

Gandalf told Frodo after he awakens in The House of Elrond, and asks about the rescue at the Ford of Bruienen, as far as Glorfindel's part at the end:

"those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm live at once in both, & against both the Seen & Unseen they have great power.'

So, there is the natural, or 'Seen' realm, which Men, Dwarves, Hobbits, animals, Tress, etc, dwell in..

And, 'The Unseen', or spiritual realm where the Ainur can dwell, unclad or 'Unseen'. At times, they 'clad' themselves & walk in forms of majesty 'splendor' (or dread) visible to the eyes of mortals...

Of course as time passes, the effect of evil consuming the host seems to bind the 'evil' spirits to the form they take, but that's hardly the point here.

So, my points?


1. As the Nazgul have passed in this 'Unseen' world, having gained greater power through their Rings, they can hardly be seen any longer as mere Men from a power standpoint.
This especially goes for the Witch-king. who Gandalf call a 'sorcerer of old' & could literally cause the weather to turn worse in winter.

2. Since the Nazgul have permanently entered the 'Wraith world' or 'Unseen' worlds, they are totally bound to the will of Sauron. 

A. He no longer needs the Rings on their fingers to control them. Tolkien is very clear they have no will of their own any longer.

B. Since they are totally in the wraith or 'Unseen' world, the Nazgul no longer need the Rings to maintain 'eternal' life so to speak, nor invisibility.

3. How not having the Rings on their fingers effects each of their individual strengths, I really have no clue, but I suspect that being so bound up in the fate of their own Ring, & their Master, not to mention his Ring, I doubt much if any. Otherwise, why would Sauron take them, trifles to him as they are?

"A thought, anyone?"


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 24, 2012)

We seem to be straying from the point of the thread, partly my fault. But I think the question that needs to be answered is, why wasn't Gandalf concerned about Durin's Bane being used by Sauron? He knew of a terror under the mountains surely. He didn't know it was a great Balrog that might remain independent from Sauron, but he knew something powerful enough to drive the powerful Morian? dwarfs out resided there. 

Gandalf was very concerned about Smaug, although he appeared like dragons usually do, lazy and content with mounds of treasure. Why would he give so much thought to Smaug and not to Durin's Bane? 

Or would anyone argue that he didn't really give much thought to Smaug? He just sent a few dwarfs and a hobbit on an impossible quest, not really too concerned, and then later takes all the credit. Is that what happened? 

But you would think Gandalf would know there are orcs from Mordor in Moria, and that a possible alliance could form between Sauron and Durin's Bane (not affirmatively identified as a Balrog). Why wasn't he concerned? 

This kind of spills over to my other thread I just posted. Sort of a mish-mash of both.


----------



## Elthir (Feb 24, 2012)

> I did not know CT had written a 'History of the Silmarillion'



I think this title might be a way to distinguish Christopher Tolkien's private work on the Silmarillion (plus the now published material) from those parts of that work that were chosen for _HME. _In other words, the more complete version 'behind'_ HME _I guess.



> 'After its publication in 1977 I began on what at first was a purely private study, a History of The Silmarillion, an exhaustive investigation and analysis of every page and passage in all my father's writings, leaving no stone unturned; and as this evolved over the years it became, greatly enlarged in scope, The History of Middle-Earth in 12 books, finally completed in 1996. In this the relationship is revealed between the published Silmarillion and the vast mass of writing from which it was derived – but not of course all the reasons and justifications for the way in which the work was carried out.'
> 
> Christopher Tolkien



http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/05/jrr-tokien-sigurd-gudrun-poem


Christopher Tolkien also explained that the part of _The History of Middle-earth_ dealing with the Elder Days is a new presentation of _The History of the Silmarillion_, and a severe contraction of it, especially in respect of the sheer quantity of variant manuscript material reproduced in full.


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 24, 2012)

Galin said:


> I think this title might be a way to distinguish Christopher Tolkien's private work on the Silmarillion (plus the now published material) from those parts of that work that were chosen for _HME. _In other words, the more complete version 'behind'_ HME _I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Interesting. Well, now back to the topic.


----------



## Elthir (Feb 25, 2012)

> And, I agree with you on Arda Reconstructed as far as the opinions? Is it a commentary or just a 'dissection of the construction of the book'?
> 
> I guess part both....




Yes AR is critical of the constructed Silmarillion, as well as merely sourcing passages. As the AR website currently states:



> He also makes a frank appraisal of the material omitted by Christopher Tolkien (and in a couple of egregious cases the material invented by him) and how these omissions and insertions may have distorted his father’s vision of what he considered—even more then _The Lord of the Rings_—to be his most important work.



I don't know who wrote this section, currently at the AR website, but I would not have chosen the word 'egregious' myself, no matter what sense is meant.

I think most people would find it difficult to certainly pick out Christopher Tolkien's relatively few inventions for the Silmarillion (none of which he wanted to engage in really), and older commentary from Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey even ascribes one of Christopher Tolkien's (who had help from Guy Kay) more notable inventions to JRRT himself.

Anyway, as far as opinions go... 

... most people seem to have at least one ;*)


----------



## Troll (Feb 25, 2012)

Bucky said:


> Relax, Bowman...
> 
> I think, since we've discussed long about ~ and I believe you understand the whole bizness about the different 'levels' of 'spiritual beings' entering into M-e in the beginning on the Smaug War of Wrath thread, you'd catch where I was going on the whole 'Nazgul being a type of Maiar' angle.
> 
> ...


 
This is an interesting concept... Even if the Nazgul are Men passed into the Unseen World, I wouldn't agree that they are particularly comparable Maiar, but the question of whether or not the Nine kept their Rings is intriguing. Personally I never considered that Sauron might have deprived them of their Rings.

One fair question is, "when did Sauron deprive them of their Rings?" If he did so prior to his defeat in the War of the Last Alliance, how did those Rings survive the destruction of Barad-dur? And why would he have done so? If their wills already belonged to him, what advantage would Sauron derive from taking the Rings away?


----------



## Elthir (Feb 25, 2012)

I think Sauron took back the Nine Rings sometime after the loss of the One. 

At one point in the tale Gandalf says something like the Nine the Nazgul keep, but other quotes appear to say that Sauron gathered the rings to himself in the Third Age -- one more specific to the Nine being (Unfinished Tales, 'he' is Sauron):
'They were by far the most powerful of his servants, and most suitable for such a mission, since they were entirely enslaved to their Nine Rings, which he now himself held...' ​


----------



## Bucky (Feb 25, 2012)

Troll said:


> This is an interesting concept... Even if the Nazgul are Men passed into the Unseen World, I wouldn't agree that they are particularly comparable Maiar, but the question of whether or not the Nine kept their Rings is intriguing. Personally I never considered that Sauron might have deprived them of their Rings.
> 
> One fair question is, "when did Sauron deprive them of their Rings?" If he did so prior to his defeat in the War of the Last Alliance, how did those Rings survive the destruction of Barad-dur? And why would he have done so? If their wills already belonged to him, what advantage would Sauron derive from taking the Rings away?


 
*Well, to 'quote the Bard' ;*) it really isn't even an 'if' the Nazgul 'had' passed into the Unseen World' it's a fact...

Gandalf is talking about Glorfindel revealed in his power, and it's because he 'has dwelt in the Blessed Realm', one would assume, although the text does not say it, during the Light of the Two Trees.

Therefore ~ and this sorta ties things in a nice little bow ~ The Nazgul are in the Unseen World. Where they rank in stature is not mine to determine. 

I was simply stating the fact.
And, backing it up by the further proof that not all beings in the Unseen World were super-high-lever big, bad boogey-men like Sauron, Gothmog, Durin's Bane and (presumably) Glaurung. There were the least of all First Age 'Orc-Captains'...

I don't think anyone would agrue that the Witch-king was more powerful than a First Age Orc Captain on steroids so to speak, right?

Yet Tolkien calls them the 'least of Maiar', and certainly they are in the Unseen World as are our Nazgul...

Humm....

And then the final point:

Glorfindel, who kills a Balrog & dies at the same time, makes the whole Nine run away after he's come back from the dead...

Gandalf, who kills a Balrog & dies in the battle also, has held off 5 of the Nine all night & then escaped all Nine the following morning, yet now, back better than ever from the dead, he's afraid of just one of the Nine, the greatest of the Nine, for sure, when he's already held him off for a night with 4 of his friends as a lesser being?

So:

1. Witch-king got a lot stronger because:

A. He's alone without the Nine.

B. Gandalf is stronger than ever to begin with.

2. Gandalf is certainly not afraid of the Witch-king at the Gates and/or the Witch-king is one very powerful being indeed. I'd say Gandalf is not afraid, but the Witch-king is also one very powerful being at various stages in his history, including this confrontation.

3. Glorfindel & Gandalf appear to be quite comparable in power.

4. I'd say their equality in power is due to the Elves who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm in the Light of the Two Trees.

5. Balrog killing, therefore is not a matter of 'who's better, because they killed' this or that one'; or 'got in this one's face' comparisons, it's just a matter of pouring everything one has in oneself into it to get the job done, and as all three detailed confrontations show this end result, we can safely conclude Feanor did not kill any Balrogs..




*


----------



## Troll (Feb 25, 2012)

I wan't questioning the Nazgul having passed into the Unseen World. I just think it's a categorical error to call them Maiar or think of them in such terms.


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 25, 2012)

First of all Bucky, I would argue that the Witch-king is easily more powerful than a First Age orc captain. Please tell me you were being sarcastic there.

Again, look at it this way. 

Gandalf the Grey killed a Balrog, and later died himself. 
Gandalf the White is much more powerful than the Grey.
Gandalf the White was matched, by the Witch-king. 

From this we have to conclude one of two things: either the Witch-king was more powerful than the Balrog (not impossible: we already know for a fact the Witch-king became stronger the closer he was to Sauron), or Gandalf the White, while still powerful, is not nearly as powerful as we think and actually the "greatness" needed to slay a Balrog is far less than previously imagined. 

If we agree on the first one, then whether or not Feanor slew any Balrogs is moot. I would have no basis for that claim and would just have to assume that being the "Spirit of Fire" he was not affected as much by fiery wounds and therefore could fight longer. 

However, if we go with option 2, then very different implications are presented. 

1. Gandalf, a lesser Maiar, known primarily for his wisdom, is able to take a Balrog (also identified as a lesser Maiar). 
2. Glorfindel took out a Balrog (actually described as mighty, but let's not split hairs here) and achieved a better result than Gandalf. Therefore one can conclude that Glorfindel possessed more of the skills needed to defeat a Balrog. What those are exactly, is a subject for another thread. 
3. Feanor is acclaimed as the mightiest of the Noldor, much greater than Glorfindel. Therefore, if Gandalf, who is less powerful (in battle) than Glorfindel, can defeat a Balrog one-on-one, then you have to think Feanor, in a "long" fight may have been able to slay at least one Balrog. It is a possibility, and not an unreasonable one, if you take option number 2.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 26, 2012)

Oh, I stumbled across this in Letter # 144 (25 April, 1954):

_'The Balrog_ is a survivor from _The Silmarillion _and the legends of First Age. So is _Shelob. _ The _Balrogs, _of whom the whips were the cheif weapons, were primeval spirits of desroying fire, cheif servants of the primeval Dark Power of the First Age. They were supposed to have been all destroyed in the overthrow of _Thangorodrim,_ his fortress in the North. But here it is found (there is usually a hang-over especially of the evil from one age to another) that one had escaped & taken refuge under the mountains of Hithaeglin (the Misty Mountains). It is observable only the Elf knows what the thing is ~ and doubtless Gandalf.'

Note: 'one had escaped'


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 26, 2012)

Cool. So we also know Shelob is immortal. Hmmmmm. Well what do you say to my last post?


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Feb 26, 2012)

Bard the Bowman said:


> Cool. So we also know Shelob is immortal. Hmmmmm. Well what do you say to my last post?


 
It doesn't say Shelob is immortal just _'Leftover from the legends of the First Age.__'_


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 26, 2012)

Okay not immortal, just really freaking old. Smaug could just be one of those.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 27, 2012)

Bard the Bowman said:


> Okay not immortal, just really freaking old. Smaug could just be one of those.


 
*I knew that was coming...
;*)

Your last post...

I think we've just come an impass. It's been talked out. I don't think such a monumental event as slaying a Balrog would go undocumented.

Plus, the modus operandi in such battles seems to be the pouring out of oneself onto death, which Feanor did not do.

So, I say no.

You say maybe.

We disagree. Impasse.


*


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Feb 27, 2012)

Listen, I'm not saying he did. Where did you ever get that idea? Glorfindel certainly did not "pour himself onto death", it was a bit of bad luck. All I'm saying is there's a possibility, due to the logical succession of points shown earlier, and Feanor's unmatched power.

By the way Bucky, Gandalf the Grey fought all Nine on top of Weathertop. Yeah, I know. All Nine.


----------



## Brand of Dale (Mar 2, 2012)

*Re: Sauron and Durin\'s Bane Were Best Buddies*

Feanor killed a Balrog? When?


----------



## Bucky (Mar 2, 2012)

You'll have to read the whole thread...

It's a long story.

He didn't.

The trolls are trying to tweak us.


----------



## Brand of Dale (Mar 2, 2012)

*Re: Sauron and Durin\'s Bane Were Best Buddies*

I know he fought Balrogs. Do you think he could have killed one in that battle?


----------



## Bucky (Mar 2, 2012)

No.

This thread is played out.


----------



## Zenith (Mar 3, 2012)

One never knows with Feanor. He did some pretty remarkable things. It may be that he did indeed slay a Balrog. Who knows?


----------



## Troll (Mar 3, 2012)

The dupe accounts are just coming out of the woodwork... Like rats off a sinking ship. ;*)


----------



## Bucky (Mar 3, 2012)

I saw that earlier & thought the same thing....

Great minds think alike. ;*)

Location: Banned. :*D


----------



## Bard the Bowman (Mar 19, 2012)

Bucky and Troll are the same person


----------



## Troll (Mar 19, 2012)

Swing and a miss. :*o


----------



## Bucky (Mar 20, 2012)

Bard the Bowman said:


> Bucky and Troll are the same person



*Yes, I'm just clever enough to not put 'Dale' on every location I sign in from. :*rolleyes:*


----------



## DerBerggeist (Mar 21, 2012)

Bucky said:


> And another thought: Sauron _might_ not be the greatest of Morgoth's servants....
> 
> Ainulindale plainly calls him 'the greatest of the Enemy's servants who have names. What unnamed ones are therefore greater?



An interesting thought, yet if you're making this point, I hope you have more evidence than that. In other texts, Sauron is frequently called Morgoth's greatest servant. As it says in _Morgoth's Ring_, "Melkor knew of all that was done; for even then he had secret friends and spies among the Maiar whom he had converted to his cause, and of these the _chief_, as after became known, was Sauron." (emphasis added). Also, in the Valaquenta, _Of the Enemies, _it says this regarding Sauron: "[Sauron] was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself". This seems to answer the problem, but still, your point is valid and raises valid questions.


----------



## Bucky (Mar 21, 2012)

DerBerggeist said:


> An interesting thought, yet if you're making this point, I hope you have more evidence than that. In other texts, Sauron is frequently called Morgoth's greatest servant. As it says in _Morgoth's Ring_, "Melkor knew of all that was done; for even then he had secret friends and spies among the Maiar whom he had converted to his cause, and of these the _chief_, as after became known, was Sauron." (emphasis added). Also, in the Valaquenta, _Of the Enemies, _it says this regarding Sauron: "[Sauron] was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself". This seems to answer the problem, but still, your point is valid and raises valid questions.



*'less evil' hardly denotes anything to do with 'spiritual power' or 'greatest' ~ it just denotes 'evilness'.... :*rolleyes:

Truth is, we can't really use The Silmarillion as much of a guide for canon anyhow as it's a bastardized text of the many of JRR Tolkien's 'First Age Works' 'edited' by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay, i.e., they combined the very texts into new sentences & (at times) invented ones. Albeit, these two statements might be directly from the pen of JRRT himself.

It's all so confusing. :*confused:*


----------



## DerBerggeist (Mar 21, 2012)

Bucky said:


> *'less evil' hardly denotes anything to do with 'spiritual power' or 'greatest' ~ it just denotes 'evilness'.... :*rolleyes:
> 
> Truth is, we can't really use The Silmarillion as much of a guide for canon anyhow as it's a bastardized text of the many of JRR Tolkien's 'First Age Works' 'edited' by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay, i.e., they combined the very texts into new sentences & (at times) invented ones. Albeit, these two statements might be directly from the pen of JRRT himself.
> 
> It's all so confusing. :*confused:*



That is definitely all true as well. But still, I think there's ample evidence to support the fact that Sauron was Morgoth's greatest servant.


----------

