# Is/Could the Silmarillion be much more violent?



## Éomond (Jan 25, 2004)

Being somewhere halfway through the Sil. for the first time, (and enjoying it very much) I was wondering about the battles fought and the creatures fighting in them.

The thing that got my attention was that the comparison of creatures and/or beast. In the First Age, the beast that dwelt in Beleriand outnumbered (most likely) the monsters and beast of Middle-earth of the Third Age. For instance: there's vampires, you've got wolves and werewolves, allot of Balrog's under the command of Melkor, plus the very hard-to-kill dragon's running around, plus numerous others.

Now, my question is, do you think that the Elves and Men of Beleriand had to fight much more gruesome, violent, and scarier battles and wars then the Elves and Men of the Third Age of Middle-earth?


----------



## Bucky (Jan 25, 2004)

Well, read on & see how long the battles are compared to latter days.......


----------



## Flammifer (Jan 25, 2004)

Yeah Bucky's right...keep reading and you'll see...

The First Age is like Texas...everything's on a larger scale.



Éomond said:


> Now, my question is, do you think that the Elves and Men of Beleriand had to fight much more gruesome, violent, and scarier battles and wars then the Elves and Men of the Third Age of Middle-earth?



The answer, seemingly, is yes. The Enemy was greater, and its power more terrible, thus the War fought against its was greater and more terrible than in the Third Age.

Certainly the battles were bigger. Read on and enjoy!


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 25, 2004)

Yeah, you still have the _Nirnaeth Arnoediad_ and _The War of Wrath_ to read!


----------



## Gil-Galad (Jan 26, 2004)

Well,firts of all Tolkien tried to create whole history of his world.Wars and battles were something normal for his world,especially when they were between Good and Evil.But in a real world the great wars and battles are not so often,just like in his world.If there had been only wars it wouldn't have been so real.Of course you will see that,actually there are many small conflicts and battles in every moment of the history of Arda(for example the daily battles of Mablung and Beleg Strongbow,protecting the northern parts of Doriath).Such conflicts were something normal for Arda as well as for our real world.


----------



## Paul (Jan 27, 2004)

Also Tolkien wrote much of the Silmarillion in the trenches of WW 1, so war was happening all around him which must have had an effect on his works.


----------



## Lantarion (Jan 27, 2004)

Éomond said:


> For instance: there's vampires, you've got wolves and werewolves, allot of Balrog's under the command of Melkor, plus the very hard-to-kill dragon's running around, plus numerous others.


Ahh! Nitpicking. 
The only mention of a vampire is when Sauron turns into one during his fight with Huan; and even that is most likely simply a synonym for a large bat.
Wolves are hardly uncommon in the Third ge, just look at how many Orcs rode them in both 'the Hobbit' and the LotR.
Also werewolves were not exactly commonplace, the only instance of the use of the term being again, I believe, the battle between Huan and Sauron, or Huan and Carcharoth.
I also got the impression that there were many Balrogs, close to or even more than a hundred, in Melkor's employ; and that is the way I prefer to see it. But I believe that there is some sort of 'proof' that there were in fact only seven Valaraukar ever in existance in Arda. This strikes me as wholly implausible as such, as it would mean that of the presumed multitudes and myriads of Ainur who existed before Eä and certainly before Arda, only _seven_ in bleak addition to some few others mentioned would have followed Melkor in his days of glory?! 
And there were actually more dragons in the Third Age than in the First!  Well, at least as many as in the First.
In the First we obviously have Glaurung, and a short appearance of Ancalagon the Black.  In the Third there was at least Scatha and Smaug.. Don't remember if there were any others.
As for the 'numerous others', yes Tolkien does use some vague and ambiguous terms when speaking of 'beasts in the employ of Morgoth' or something similar, so I think we can assume that there existed other species of evil creature than those explicitly given in the text. 

Ahh, my nitpicking is done. Hi ho Silver, awaaaayyyy!!


----------



## Flame of Udûn (Jan 28, 2004)

Your nitpicking is not up to its usual standard.
There is one other mention of a vampire, Thuringwethil, Sauron's messenger. Also, Sauron does not turn into a vampire (which I believe to be understood as a modern-day vampire, at least in form) during his fight with Huan, but rather when fleeing from the scene of his defeat.
Consider that Tol Sirion was renamed Tol-in-Gaurhoth, the Isle of the Werewolves after Sauron's inhabitation of it. Sauron was the "creator" of some werewolves himself, other than Morgoth, who himself had in his service Draugluin, sire of werewolves, indicating that there were others in the Dark Lord's armies.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jan 28, 2004)

Well of course the Silmarillion was 'bigger, better and badder' then the T.A battle-wise. As Sam points out Beren's danger was greater then his and Frodo's in Mordor and the intrinsic strengths of the evil lords, as well as their armies and their enemies (The Ñoldor and Edain) were greater then in the T.A. As 'Of Dwarves and Men' (HoME 12) states, some of the Edain were the equals of the Ñoldor and Sindar in battle and some of the Men (i.e. Húrin, Hador, Túrin) were as great, if not greater then most Elves, and the Noldor in their youth were the mightiest foes the dark lord could get ('Myths Transformed, HoME 10) in short the F.A was a more 'heroic' age.

The Second Age, with the mighty Númenóreans (who for quite some time were 'peaceful' and made little story of weapons and had no desire for hegemony) and the remnants of the Ñoldor and Sindar and Sylvan Elves was well as the indigenous mannish populations of M-E (i.e. Marachians in Rhovanion) and the Dwarves (who were also involved in some of the wars of Beleriand) and the Last Alliance was also, military wise a 'powerful' age, but as was, to some extent the Third, in which Gondor recalled the glory and splendour of Númenór and there were many mighty battles fought. But civil wars and outside forces sapped Gondor and Arnor of it's strength and they, along with the Northmen were over-whelmed. Nonetheless the Gondorian kings came from a 'war-like' line (i.e. Ondoher) as Earnur, and by the end of the T.A strength in arms were more highly valued then nobility etc. as Beregond, Faramir and Denethor (as well as others, note Théoden and Éomer’s reaction to the death of the 'mighty warrior' Boromir) attest to.



> But I believe that there is some sort of 'proof' that there were in fact only seven Valaraukar ever in existence in Arda. This strikes me as wholly implausible as such, as it would mean that of the presumed multitudes and myriads of Ainur who existed before Eä and certainly before Arda, only seven in bleak addition to some few others mentioned would have followed Melkor in his days of glory?!



The problem is that most Balrog references in the 'Published Silmarillion' were from pre-LoTR Silmarillion work, in which the Balrogs were not Maia and thus not as powerful as they latter became and thus references to many Balrogs are commonplace. When Balrogs became Maia (Annals of Aman) their power and prestige greatly increased, and as did their numbers. Having hundreds of Balrogs is a problem as such a vast amount of Balrogs would mean the Noldor and their allies would be easily defeated in battles in which the Balrogs were present in large numbers. Glorfindel and Echtelion are renowned for their slaying of their Balrogs and if there were hundreds of Balrogs then surely one or two others had been slain by Elves in the course of the war? Fingon and Fëanor give their respected Balrog/s a good fight, but they were exceptional warriors.

For example, reference to hundreds/thousands of Balrogs given in earlier versions of the Nirnaeth Arnoediad (HoME 4 and 5) mention large numbers of Balrogs, but in the latter version (HoME 11) their number is significantly cut down. 

There were other Maia who became other things, such as Ork-captains or powerful individuals like Sauron.

I think the dragon host would have been quite substantial in the F.A, many would have been slain during the course of the war or in the War of Wrath. 

We have three dragons mentioned, the ubiquitous Smaug, the enigmatic Scatha and the cold-drake who killed Dáin I and Fror. There were of course, other dragons, of various kinds.


----------



## Lantarion (Jan 28, 2004)

Thanks for the clarification Inder that helped a lot.. Silly of me not to have thought of it before. 
And are the references to other dragons in the HoME, or does the LotR or Hobbit have some mention of them?


----------



## Inderjit S (Jan 29, 2004)

Thorin refers to dragons in the plural on several occasions (i.e the Withered Heath where the dragons breed) though none apart from Smaug are mentioned. Dwarves were often afflicted by Dragons. Smaug and Scatha are famous because they were involved in 'greater' affairs and seem to have taken over certain realms of areas. (Scatha's death lead to the enmity that developed between the Northmen and Dwarves as a result, which upset their cordial-esque relationship, Merry's horn also came from it's hoard) 

We also get a reference to 'dragons' when Pippin asks what the fire from the beacons is. At first he thought the fire was caused by Dragons.

Gandalf also refers to Ancalagon. There may be other reference to 'dragons' but I haven't got my books with me at the mo.


----------



## Garwen (Feb 22, 2004)

*Silmarillion/violent*

Melkor was a Valar and much stronger then Sauron so I would believe that violent action would be greater in the Silmarillion. then in the LOTR Just my view though.


----------



## Capitan Pirata (Apr 16, 2004)

Of course, Silmarillion is more violent, so much more.
Many battles and wars


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 17, 2004)

Well the Silmarillion was basically a condensed version of a 500 year war, whilst LoTR and The Hobbit are more narrative, and describe events of a shorter period of time, in which there were some wars, though they weren't the most important part of the story. 

The Silmarillion describes an age, LoTR a few years, if you exclude the appendix.


----------

