# Of dragons and balrogs



## Thorondor_ (Sep 16, 2005)

To start with, which 'race' was more powerful?
In the war of wrath, the balrogs are no match for the host of the the valar:


> There was marshalled the whole power of the Throne of Morgoth, and it had become great beyond count, so that Anfauglith could not contain it; and all the North was aflame with war.
> But it availed him not. _The Balrogs were destroyed_, save some few that fled and hid themselves in caverns inaccessible at the roots of the earth


However, the dragons were a totally different story:


> Then, seeing that his hosts were overthrown and his power dispersed,Morgoth quailed, and he dared not to come forth himself. But he loosed upon his foes the last desperate assault that he had prepared, and out of the pits of Angband there issued the winged dragons, that had not before been seen; and so sudden and ruinous was the onset of that dreadful fleet that the host of the Valar was driven back, for the coming of the dragons was with great thunder, and lightning, and a tempest of fire.


Of the Fifth Battle, Nirnaeth Arnoediad:


> There came wolves, and wolfriders, and there came Balrogs, and dragons, and Glaurung father of dragons. The strength and terror of the Great Worm were now great indeed, and Elves and Men withered before him; and he came between the hosts of Maedhros and Fingon and swept them apart.


Imo, Glaurung achieved more than any balrog in this battle.
From the Fall of Gondolin, Home II:


> But the rede that Meglin gave to Melko was that not all the host of the Orcs nor the Balrogs in their fierceness might by assault or siege hope ever to overthrow the walls and gates of Gondolin even if they availed to win unto the plain without. Therefore he counselled Melko to devise out of his sorceries a succour for his warriors in their endeavour. From the greatness of his wealth of metals and his powers of fire he bid him make beasts like snakes and dragons of irresistible might that should overcreep the Encircling Hills and lap that plain and its fair city in flame and death


Home IV, commentary on the Annals of Beleriand:


> The number of a thousand Balrogs who came from Angband when 'Hell was emptied' shows once again, and more clearly than ever, that Morgoth's demons of fire were not conceived as rare or peculiarly terrible – unlike the Dragon


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 16, 2005)

I still have some more reading before giving a reasonable post on this subject, however, I will make some comments now.


> In the war of wrath, the balrogs are no match for the host of the the valar:
> 
> However, the dragons were a totally different story:


In point of fact none of Melkor's host were a match for the host of the Valar. In the War of Wrath all of Melkors armies, Land or Air, were destroyed or driven off. The Winged Dragons only had a very short-term effect. Being unexpected they had a very limited success but were soon overcome.


> Imo, Glaurung achieved more than any balrog in this battle.


This may be true as far as the writings of the time were concerned. I agree that Glaurung was shown as a very powerful creature that appeared far stronger than the hords of Balrogs. However, There is a problem with the writings of the Sil and of HoME, none of the stories were completed by JRRT. These stories were all being revised and the number of Balrogs was being reduced from thousands to 'Three or at most Seven'.


----------



## Hammersmith (Sep 17, 2005)

Well, the dwarves fared very well against the dragons in one of the battles I remember. Very well in fact, until their king was killed. Obliging quote, please, Thorondor? 

In contrast, the dwarves did quite abysmally a few thousand years later against the Moria Balrog, though admittedly they were a different generation of dwarves, presumably with different levels of tolerance and different variables. This was the generation that also got whipped soundly by Smaug of course, so it could just be down to a general atrophy of the race.

I'd imagine that there's a vast difference between the winged and non-winged worms of Morgoth too, which is a discussion all on its own.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Sep 17, 2005)

> Well, the dwarves fared very well against the dragons in one of the battles I remember. Very well in fact, until their king was killed. Obliging quote, please, Thorondor?


  
When I recently re-read the passage, it just put the dwarves even higher on my admire-list
Of the fifth battle Nirnaeth Arnoediad:


> Last of all the eastern force to stand firm were the Dwarves of Belegost, and thus they won renown. For the Naughrim withstood fire more hardily than either Elves or Men, and it was their custom moreover to wear great masks in battle hideous to look upon; and those stood them in good stead against the dragons. And but for them Glaurung and his brood would have witered 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; and when in his rage Glaurung turned and struck down Azagal, Lord of Belegost, and crawled over him, with his last stroke Azaghal drove a knife into his belly, and so wounded him that he fled the field, and the beasts of Angband in dismay followed after him. Then the dwarves raised up the body of Azagal and bore it away; and with slow steps they walked behind singing a dirge in deep voices, as it were a funeral pomp in their country, and gave no heed more to their foes; and none dared to stay them.





> In contrast, the dwarves did quite abysmally a few thousand years later against the Moria Balrog, though admittedly they were a different generation of dwarves, presumably with different levels of tolerance and different variables. This was the generation that also got whipped soundly by Smaug of course, so it could just be down to a general atrophy of the race.
> 
> I'd imagine that there's a vast difference between the winged and non-winged worms of Morgoth too, which is a discussion all on its own.


I certainly agree (and about the flying dragons, I doubt any axe could have even hit them)


----------



## Ingwë (Sep 17, 2005)

Nice thread 

The Balrogs are Maiar corrupted by Melkor. He used them for his evil purposed, he deceived them and they became his servants. I don't know much about the dragon's origin... They were created by Melkor but I don't know whether he himself created the Dragons or no? Can he create life? But the Balrogs should be much more powerful than the Dragons because of their origin. 
About Glaurung... indeed he was very powerful creature but he was the father of the Dragons. He was the first. 
However, the Dragons and the Balrogs are different creatures... Origin, powers. i think that there are Balrogs more powerful than the Dragons.


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Sep 17, 2005)

> Therefore he counselled Melko to devise out of his sorceries a succour for his warriors in their endeavour. From the greatness of his wealth of metals and his powers of fire he bid him make beasts like snakes and dragons of irresistible might that should overcreep the Encircling Hills and lap that plain and its fair city in flame and death.


From this quote I would assume that Melkor did make the dragons. Who knows what he twisted to create them?

A few things I would like to point out:

In the battles previously quoted where "elves and men withered" and "the Valar are driven back," is it possible that Valar, Elves and Men alike just did not yet know how to kill a dragon? Until the peoples found that soft spot on the dragon's bellies they would seem like invincible creatures. I'm sure it took a while to find that out. By the time of Turin this was known:


> _Silmarillion_Then he drew Gurthang, and with all the might of his arm, and of his hate, he thrust it into the soft belly of the Worm, even up to the hilts. But when Glaurung felt his death-pang, he screamed, and in his dreadful throe he heaved up his bulk and hurled himself across the chasm, and there lay lashing and coiling in his agony. And he set all in a blaze about him, and beat all to ruin, until at last his fires died, and he lay still.
> 
> . . . part removed where Turin returns to Glaurung to retrieve his sword. . .
> 
> Then Turambar seized the hilts and set his foot upon the belly, and cried in mockery of the dragon and his words at nargothrond: 'Hail, Worm of Morgoth! Well met again! Die now and the darkness have thee! Thus is Turin son of Hurin avenged.'


Here Glaurung is killed single-handedly by Turin. Now, if Turin had faced a Balrog I wonder if things would have been different?

I think of The Hobbit. Gandalf (a Maiar) sends 13 dwarves and 1 Hobbit to kill a dragon. And this is the same dragon that routed many dwarves earlier.


> In contrast, the dwarves did quite abysmally a few thousand years later against the Moria Balrog, though admittedly they were a different generation of dwarves, presumably with different levels of tolerance and different variables. This was the generation that also got whipped soundly by Smaug of course, so it could just be down to a general atrophy of the race.


To me the very fact that Gandalf sent 14 very small people to kill a dragon says volumes to me about the race of Dwarves: they certainly had not atrophied.

Now, let's look at Balrogs:

Gandalf wished to enter Moria. Aragorn counseled strongly against it.


> _LOTR_The Eagles report that Orcs are gathering again from afar; but there is a hope that Moria is still free. _- Gandalf_


Gandalf still hoped that it was free.


> 'A Balrog,' muttered Gandalf. 'Now I understand.' He faltered and leaned heavily on his staff. 'What an evil fortune! And I am already weary.'


Gandalf found his match in Moria and fell as a result. He certainly feared the balrog!

To me, this would make Balrogs stronger. If Gandalf feared to face a Balrog himself but was willing send a small band of dwarves and hobbits (who have very little experience) to kill a dragon with the full confidence that they could succeed, how can dragons be more powerful? I realize that Smaug was nothing compared to his ancestors, but still!

So again, is it possible that dragons were so fearful at first just because people did not know how to kill them?


----------



## Hammersmith (Sep 18, 2005)

Nenya Evenstar said:


> I think of The Hobbit. Gandalf (a Maiar) sends 13 dwarves and 1 Hobbit to kill a dragon. And this is the same dragon that routed many dwarves earlier.
> To me the very fact that Gandalf sent 14 very small people to kill a dragon says volumes to me about the race of Dwarves: they certainly had not atrophied.


I do not believe this is valid. Firstly, you have ignored the fact that the dragon effortlessly burned out an entire civilisation of dwarves only short years earlier and held the laketown in thrall. Secondly, you misinterpret the mission. Gandalf did not send the dwarves, but rather sent them a burglar and gave them a little help. They were going treasure-stealing, not dragon hunting. Arguably, Thorin's only goal was to retrieve the Arkenstone, with the rest of the treasure secondary, liberation of Eregion tertiary and the dragonslaying not even worth entertaining as a thought. And then even when the dragon is killed, it is a pure accident. These petty greedy dwarves too afraid even to venture down a tunnel with a sleeping dragon somewhere in the vicinity are a far cry from their fierce and fearless ancestors who faced down dragons without fear and were so collected during battle that they held a funeral during a skirmish. I think the atrophy is quite obvious.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Sep 18, 2005)

I think that Glaurung was the greatest dragon ever, followed by Ancalagon, though I'd say Glaurung's main weapon was his talent for cunning and deception (much like Sauron), whereas Ancalagon seems to be mostly a 'power-oriented' dragon, though it may be otherwise, as we don't really get to know Ancalagon as we do Glaurung.

I would say that no, on the whole, dragons are not a mightier race than the Balrogs, but there are exceptions, like the two mentioned above, whom I would put above an average Balrog, except maybe for Gothmog, and even then I would think of putting Gothmog and Glaurung on par with each other, though I would probably tend to give Gothmog the upper hand in the end (and _not_ because he's a good friend, though I do think us Maiar have to stick together ).


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 19, 2005)

First let us look at the “Dragons” of Gondolin in HoME II


> Then on a time Melko assembled all his most cunning smiths and sorcerers, and of iron and flame they wrought a host of monsters such as have only at that time been seen and shall not again be till the Great End.
> Some were all of iron so cunningly linked that they might flow like slow rivers of metal or coil themselves around and above all obstacles before them, and these were filled in their innermost depths with the grimmest of the Orcs with scimitars and spears; others of bronze and copper were given hearts and spirits of blazing fire, and they blasted all that stood before them with the terror of their snorting or trampled whatso escaped the ardour of their breath; yet others were creatures of pure flame that writhed like ropes of molten metal, and they brought to ruin whatever fabric they came nigh, and iron and stone melted before them and became as water, and upon them rode the Balrogs in hundreds; and these were the most dire of all those monsters which Melko devised against Gondolin.


So the dragons used in this tale are simply mechanical creations. They are nothing like the living creatures that Tolkien wrote about in later revisions. Also, the Balrogs were of great number and lesser individual power than they became in later revisions.

In all the later revisions and new stories the dragons were powerful living creatures and did not change any more. Balrogs on the other hand were being revised throughout the reworking that Tolkien was doing to the stories of the Silmarillion. From the thousands of Balrogs only a little greater than Elves in the early versions Tolkien was in the process reducing the numbers of them to only a maximum of Seven and so increasing the individual power accordingly.

Unfortunately we only have what is written in LotR as evidence of his later view of the Balrog. We know that the Balrog of Moria was powerful enough to drive the Dwarves from their ancient home and to prevent them from returning even after the Dwarf Goblin war. As we can be reasonably sure that Durin’s Bane was less powerful than Gothmog this makes it hard to compare the un-revised Balrogs of the Sil. To the Dragons.

So the only real comparison we have between Balrogs and Dragons is found in The Hobbit and LotR. Smaug cleared the Dwarves out of the Lonely Mountain and was killed by an arrow from Bard the Bowman. Durin’s Bane cleared the Dwarves out of Moria and was killed after a great battle with another Maia.


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Sep 20, 2005)

> Quote:
> I do not believe this is valid. Firstly, you have ignored the fact that the dragon effortlessly burned out an entire civilisation of dwarves only short years earlier and held the laketown in thrall. Secondly, you misinterpret the mission. Gandalf did not send the dwarves, but rather sent them a burglar and gave them a little help. They were going treasure-stealing, not dragon hunting. Arguably, Thorin's only goal was to retrieve the Arkenstone, with the rest of the treasure secondary, liberation of Eregion tertiary and the dragonslaying not even worth entertaining as a thought. And then even when the dragon is killed, it is a pure accident. These petty greedy dwarves too afraid even to venture down a tunnel with a sleeping dragon somewhere in the vicinity are a far cry from their fierce and fearless ancestors who faced down dragons without fear and were so collected during battle that they held a funeral during a skirmish. I think the atrophy is quite obvious.


I disagree. By "sent" I mean "Gandalf _supported_ the dwarves mission and helped _send_ them on their way instead of recommending that they remain home." This shows that Gandalf had confidence in the dwarves and Bilbo.


> _The Hobbit_They debated long on what was to be done, but they could think of no way of getting rid of Smaug -- which had always been a weak point in their plans, as Bilbo felt inclined to point out. Then as is the nature of folk that are thoroughly perplexed, they began to grumble at the hobbit, blaming him for what had at first so pleased them: for bringing away a cup and stirring up Smaug's wrath so soon.
> 
> 'What else do you suppose a burglar is to do?' Asked Bilbo angrily. 'I was not engaged to kill dragons, that is warrior's work, but to steal treasure. I made the best beginning I could. Did you expect me to trot back with the whole hoard of Thror on my back? If there is any grumbling to be done, I think I might have a say. You ought to have brought five hundred burglars not one. I am sure it reflects great credit on your grandfather, but you cannot pretened that you ever made the vast extent of his wealth clear to me. I should want hundreds of years to bring it all up, if I was fifty times as big, and Smaug as tame as a rabbit.'
> 
> ...



The dwarves knew at the beginning that something would have to be done with the dragon. Here, they realize it once more. Also, the horde was just plain too big to be stolen. They knew they had to get rid of the dragon if they wished to see even a little bit of the treasure.


> Arguably, Thorin's only goal was to retrieve the Arkenstone, with the rest of the treasure secondary, liberation of Eregion tertiary and the dragonslaying not even worth entertaining as a thought.


If the only thing Thorin was after was the Arkenstone, he would have accepted Bard's offer to exchange the Arkenstone for a fourteenth of the treasure. However, he first tried to start a war so that he could keep both the treasure and the Arkenstone. Thorin didn't want to settle for less than _all_ the treasure he felt was his.


> Firstly, you have ignored the fact that the dragon effortlessly burned out an entire civilisation of dwarves only short years earlier and held the laketown in thrall.


I am not saying that Smaug wasn't capable of doing his own damage. A furious dragon is a huge problem. All I'm doing is comparing Smaug with Durin's Bane. As Gothmog pointed out, these two creatures are what we have to work with to see what Tolkien meant. From what I can see, Gandalf obviously feared Durin's Bane above Smaug by leaps and bounds. He knew that the dwarves and Bilbo would eventually have to do something about the dragon. Perhaps he had foresight to see that Bard would kill Smaug? I do not know. However, Gandalf knew his own peril with Durin's Bane but was willing to support a treasure hunt of 14 very weak (compared to the dragon) individuals. Seems to me that Gandalf was much more concerned about the Balrog than the dragon, which leads me to believe that the Balrogs must be the more powerful of the two beings.

Also, I must defend Thorin and Co:


> _The Hobbit_Day drew on. The goblins gathered again in the valley. There a host of Wargs came ravening and with them came the bodyguard of Bolg, goblins of huge size with scimitars of steel. Soon actual darkness was coming into a stormy sky; while still the great bats swirled about the heads and ears of elves and men, of fastened vampire-oike on the stricken. Now Bard was fighting to defend the Eatern spur, and yet giving slowly back; and the elfplords were at bay about their king upon the southern arm, near to the watch-post on Ravenhill.
> 
> Suddenly there was a great shout, and from the Gate came a trumpet call. They had forgotten Thorin! Part of the wall, moved by levers, fell outward with a crash into the pool. Out leapt the King under the Mountain, and his companions followed him. Hood and cloak were gone; they were in shining armour, and red light leapt from their eyes. In the gloom the great dwarf gleamed like gold in a dying fire.
> 
> ...


Doesn't sound very atrophied to me. Yes, they were cowardly at some moments, but they still had a lot of guts left in them.


----------



## Hammersmith (Sep 20, 2005)

Nenya Evenstar said:


> I disagree. By "sent" I mean "Gandalf _supported_ the dwarves mission and helped _send_ them on their way instead of recommending that they remain home." This shows that Gandalf had confidence in the dwarves and Bilbo.
> 
> 
> The dwarves knew at the beginning that something would have to be done with the dragon. Here, they realize it once more. Also, the horde was just plain too big to be stolen. They knew they had to get rid of the dragon if they wished to see even a little bit of the treasure.



I'm probably the worst person here for delivering quotes, so I'll use yours. Does it not prove that whatever Gandalf may or may not have thought, the dwarves had never planned on killing Smaug, but had simply harboured some vague idea of stealing his treasure (hence bringing a burglar) and only confronted the huge holes in their plan at the point you quoted, where they admit 'getting rid of Smaug had always been a weak spot in their plans'?



Nenya Evenstar said:


> If the only thing Thorin was after was the Arkenstone, he would have accepted Bard's offer to exchange the Arkenstone for a fourteenth of the treasure. However, he first tried to start a war so that he could keep both the treasure and the Arkenstone. Thorin didn't want to settle for less than _all_ the treasure he felt was his.


That's a very good point. However, I'm pretty certain that by this time since Thorin is now confronted with a dead dragon and a horde of angry peasants (in his mind) he sees no reason why he cannot expand his ambition. I don't see this as his lack of value for the Arkenstone, but rather his lack of respect for the Bardings as adversaries, and his willingness to shoot for a greater prize than he originally believed possible.



Nenya Evenstar said:


> I am not saying that Smaug wasn't capable of doing his own damage. A furious dragon is a huge problem. All I'm doing is comparing Smaug with Durin's Bane. As Gothmog pointed out, these two creatures are what we have to work with to see what Tolkien meant. From what I can see, Gandalf obviously feared Durin's Bane above Smaug by leaps and bounds. He knew that the dwarves and Bilbo would eventually have to do something about the dragon. Perhaps he had foresight to see that Bard would kill Smaug? I do not know. However, Gandalf knew his own peril with Durin's Bane but was willing to support a treasure hunt of 14 very weak (compared to the dragon) individuals. Seems to me that Gandalf was much more concerned about the Balrog than the dragon, which leads me to believe that the Balrogs must be the more powerful of the two beings.


It's cynical of me, I know, but I'll point out quickly how Gandalf was nowhere to be seen when the dragon showed up. Anyway, that's not really part of my argument, and nowhere did *I* claim that one or the other were more powerful monsters. Maybe Gandalf was right to fear the dragon less than the Balrog, but that doesn't change the fact that Thorin's dwarves did pretty poorly against Smaug.



Nenya Evenstar said:


> Also, I must defend Thorin and Co.
> Doesn't sound very atrophied to me. Yes, they were cowardly at some moments, but they still had a lot of guts left in them.



Well, sorry to be contrary, but to me this is nothing like the proud and powerful dwarves who marched into the face of the greatest of dragons with barely a scratch to show for it. These don't reflect well on the dwarves who would dare strike down a king in his own hall and defy one of the most powerful races on the planet. While it's a small window of their predacessors shining through them, I think that when contrasted with their decidedly lesser abilities and tolerances elsewhere in the book, it's a: not a representative depiction of Thorin's dwarves and b: even if it is, it is of small account when compared to their ancestors.

Thus (just to link this back to the original discussion) I think that the dwarves had shown clear signs of atrophy, and so while peers can be compared to define the strengths of dragons and balrogs (such as Durin and Thorin), the dwarves of Belegost and LOTR age dwarves can not (such as Thorin and Azagal).


----------



## Arvedui (Sep 20, 2005)

First of all, the topic on who's mightiest has been discussed before here. 
I am a bit surprised that neither Ithrynluin nor Gothmog have seen that...  

Secondly, I think that it is wrong to compare creatures based on such different books as _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings._
When _The Hobbit_ was written, the cruelty and the cunning of the various foul beasts were not as developed as they were 20 years later. Another example in point is to compare the goblins of _The Hobbit_ with the later Orcs.

Third, and I will repeat myself and refer to the notorious David Day who wrote this on Dragons:


> The dark jewels of Morgoth's genius were the Great Worms called Dragons.


 and


> All Dragons were the embodiment of the chief evils of Men, Elves and dwarves, and so were great in their destruction of those races.


While on Balrogs he wrote:


> Of all Melkor's creatures, only Dragons were greater in power.



The counter-arguments are of course that David Day is probably the least trustworthy "expert" on Tolkien.
And also, alle the Dragons that we have come across have been killed by Men, whereas it took Elves or even Maia to kill Balrogs.


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 20, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> First of all, the topic on who's mightiest has been discussed before here.
> I am a bit surprised that neither Ithrynluin nor Gothmog have seen that...
> 
> Secondly, I think that it is wrong to compare creatures based on such different books as _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings._
> ...


Yes is is strange that I missed that one 

However, even Glaurung needed the help of Orcs to clear the Elves out Nargothrond before he chased them off. Smaug managed the Lonely Mountain clearout on his own. Smaug was not the Greatest Dragon to have lived, that was Glaurung with Ancalagon as the most powerful (at least so far as flame went). In the case of dragons we see the cruelty and cunning even in the children's story of the Hobbit. Balrogs we only see their true power in the LotR. So the only chance we have of comparison is through Glaurung clearing Nargothrond with the help of a large army of Orcs/Smaug clearing the Lonely Mountain of Dwarves on his own vs. Durin's Bane clearing Moria of all the Dwarves apparantly on his own.

David Day has his opinions of Tolkien's cratures. Some of which I even agree with. 

Perhaps Men had more luck with dragons because Balrogs were "Elf Banes"


----------



## baragund (Sep 20, 2005)

Then there was Ecthelion who took out Gothmog and Glorfindel killed another balrog after the sack of Gondolin. This tells me that individuals (albeit extremely mighty ones) could slay a balrog.

Still, Glaurung was slain by a single thrust of Turin's blade and Smaug was killed by a single arrow once Bard found the spot on his belly that wasn't armored by jewels. It's not clear exactly how Earendil slew Ancalagon but there is a vague reference to his ship "shining with white flame".

It seems to me when you compare the epic battles described to kill the various balrogs with the "single shots" described in the slayings of Smaug and Glaurung that, overall, the balrogs were tougher to kill.

On the other hand, it seems the dragons wrought more destruction. Gothmog (the TTF member) mentioned in his last post that the Moria balrog cleared out all the Dwarves there on his own. But weren't the Moria Dwarves already weakened from the goblin wars? I seem to recall the balrog showed up not long after that truly horrendous war.


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 20, 2005)

In HoME 12: The Peoples of Middle-earth, there is the following in the notes for the section ‘The Third Age’



> 35. The War of the Dwarves and Orcs entered the history at this time. In very difficult scribbled notes at the end of T 3 my father asked himself: 'When were the Dwarf and Goblin wars? When did Moria become finally desolate?' He noted that since the wars were referred to by Thorin in The Hobbit they 'must have been recent', and suggested that there was 'an attempt to enter Moria in Thrain's time', perhaps 'an expedition from Erebor to Moria'. 'But the appearance of the Balrog and the desolation of Moria must be more ancient, possibly as far back as c.1980-2000'. He then wrote:
> 'After fall of Erebor Thror tried to visit Moria and was killed by a goblin. The dwarves assembled a force and fought Orcs on east side of Moria and did great slaughter, but could not enter Moria because of "the terror". Dain returns to the Iron Hills, but Thorin and Thrain wander about.'



So Durin’s Bane cleared out Moria before the Goblin Wars. The Balrog was waiting inside the door to Moria when the Dwarves tried to return.


----------



## Aglarband (Sep 20, 2005)

I'd have to say that Dragons are smarter than Balrogs, but Balrogs are stronger. We never hear of a Balrog doing anything other than fighting, but Dragons commanded entire legions and stuff. This leads me to think that Dragons are better because they are dangerous when u talk to them alone.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Sep 21, 2005)

Alas, I have to agree with everyone else in this thread  (Home II, Turin and Foaloke):


> Now those drakes and worms are the evillest creatures that Melkor has made, and the most uncouth, yet of all are they the most powerful, _save it be the Balrogs only_


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 21, 2005)

Well the purpose of this thread was not for one side or the other to win but to find, if possible, the truth. And it was you who found what appears to be the quote to end the matter


----------



## Ingwë (Sep 21, 2005)

> Still, Glaurung was slain by a single thrust of Turin's blade and Smaug was killed by a single arrow once Bard found the spot on his belly that wasn't armored by jewels. It's not clear exactly how Earendil slew Ancalagon but there is a vague reference to his ship "shining with white flame".


The Dragons have an ill spot on their armor. Actually, it is ill because that has no armor. It reminds me of Achilles and his heel. It was his unprotected spot. I doubt that the Balrogs have unprotected spot. They're Maiar. I think that the Dragons can made more problems, they can easy destroy vast territories but it is easier to kill them. Turin Turambar killed Glaurung because he knew of his ill spot of the Men of Dagor Bragolah (as far as I remember...). I suppose that many dragons were killed then though it is not mentioned.


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 22, 2005)

Balrogs were the more powerful IMO, since Tolkien deemed it fit to reduce their number to 7 and they were the greatest Maia in his service. Though there may have been a few exceptions, such as Glaurung.

Thorondor-I see no point on producing quotes from BoLT, since Balrogs then were vastly different from what they later became.


----------



## Snaga (Sep 22, 2005)

My own view on this is that whilst Balrogs are all maia, dragons (like giant spiders) are not. But it appears to me likely (although there is no direct evidence) that Glaurung and maybe Ancalagon were maia, but their descendants were not. Thus dragons dwindled and the old fire lessened through generations, just as Shelob was less powerful than Ungoliant, and the spiders of Mirkwood lesser still.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Sep 22, 2005)

> Thorondor-I see no point on producing quotes from BoLT, since Balrogs then were vastly different from what they later became.


I don't see the point of your remark, since you state yourself that balrogs became even more powerful in later works.


----------



## Arvedui (Sep 23, 2005)

Balrogs may have been powerful and all, but still (to me at least) the dragons come across as more cunning, more shrewd, and not the least: hypnothic.
Balrogs was just scary, that's all.


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 23, 2005)

You don't see the point in my remark? Thats nice.
The point of my remark, in case you didn't notice, was to show you and others that quoting from BoLT in such matters is useless since the creatures in BoLT which are called 'dragons' and 'Balrogs' are not neccesarily the same as they are when Tolkien began to develop his mythology in accordance to LoTR, and so taking a quote and using it as 'proof' of a certain 'fact' doesn't make any sense of the creatures in question are not one and the same with the creatures we are discussing. 

I think Glaurung may have been a Maia since Turin talks about the power of his spirit, and how it was the main source of his power. The winged dragons seem to me to have been created by Morgoth, or one of his servants.

Men, Dwarves and Elves could kill Dragons (of various kinds)-plus they had a weak spot-their underbelly. Balrogs had no such weakspots, they were named as the greatest Elf banes apart from Sauron, and it took a supremely powerful individual to fight them (Feanor, Ecthelion, Glorfindel, Fingon, Gandalf) whereas a normal man such as Bard can kill dragons.


----------



## baragund (Sep 23, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> So Durin’s Bane cleared out Moria before the Goblin Wars. The Balrog was waiting inside the door to Moria when the Dwarves tried to return.



Yes, that's right. That chronology is also in the Appendices of LOTR. 

Incidentally, check out the account of the battle between the Dwarves and King Azog's orcs before the entrance to Moria in the "Of Durin's Folk" in the Appendices. Whoa, that is one nasty, brutal, no-holds-barred fight! I have a feeling Tolkien got rid of a lot of bile from his own wartime experiences when he wrote this.


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Sep 24, 2005)

> _Posted by Smitty_I'm probably the worst person here for delivering quotes, so I'll use yours. Does it not prove that whatever Gandalf may or may not have thought, the dwarves had never planned on killing Smaug, but had simply harboured some vague idea of stealing his treasure (hence bringing a burglar) and only confronted the huge holes in their plan at the point you quoted, where they admit 'getting rid of Smaug had always been a weak spot in their plans'?





> _Posted by Smitty_That's a very good point. However, I'm pretty certain that by this time since Thorin is now confronted with a dead dragon and a horde of angry peasants (in his mind) he sees no reason why he cannot expand his ambition. I don't see this as his lack of value for the Arkenstone, but rather his lack of respect for the Bardings as adversaries, and his willingness to shoot for a greater prize than he originally believed possible.


From Chapter 1 of the Hobbit, where Thorin is explaining to Bilbo the purpose of their trip, we read:


> "The few of us that were well outside sat and wept in hiding, and cursed Smaug; and there we were unexpectedly joined by my father and my grandfather with singed beards. They looked very grim but they said very little. When I asked how they had got away, they told me to hold my tongue, and said that one day in the proper time I should know. After that we went away, and we have had to earn our livings as best we could up and down the lands, often enough sinking as low as blacksmith-work or even coalmining. *But we have never forgotten our stolen treasure.* And even now, when I will allow we have a good bit laid by and are not so badly off" -- here Thorin stroked the gold chain round his neck -- "we still mean to get it back, *and to bring our curses home to Smaug* -- if we can."


So we see that 1: Thorin was NOT thinking only of the Arkenstone, but of all the treasure.
And 2: He hoped, even in the beginning, to "bring his curses home to Smaug." In other words, revenge.

Smitty, I'm not going to argue with you about your view of the Dwarves atrophying, as it is off topic (as is this post, probably ). But, I will have you know that I agree with some of your points. All I will say is that even _if_ Thorin and Co. were weak, and since Gandalf fully supported their going to "bring curses home to Smaug," this makes the dragon even _less_ powerful.


----------



## Hammersmith (Sep 24, 2005)

Nenya, I'd argue baselessly that "treasure" to Thorin could easily be narrowed to "Arkenstone first, everything else later", while his hopes for Smaug were clearly secondary and perhaps even only a pipe dream until they were unexpectedly accomplished. And yes, you're right about this all adding up to the weakness of dragons.

One other thing that could be interesting is that _if_ dwarves could be said to atrophy from their bold predacessors who didn't fear dragons and marched at them bravely, it could be an important precedent that many races could be watered down---dragons included. It's pretty much accepted that Smaug, though incredibly powerful for his day, was no match for Glaurung or Ancalgon. Are we building a case for the weakening of Dragons versus the maintenance of a strong and unweakening core of Balrogs? Maybe.


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 24, 2005)

> Are we building a case for the weakening of Dragons versus the maintenance of a strong and unweakening core of Balrogs? Maybe.


While the race of Dragons could over the generations weaken the same could not be true of Balrogs. The Balrog of Moria was the same one that escaped the ruin of Angband and helped terrorise the Elves in the First Age


----------



## Ithrynluin (Sep 24, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> Are we building a case for the weakening of Dragons versus the maintenance of a strong and unweakening core of Balrogs? Maybe.



If I understand what you're getting at correctly...I don't think Balrogs remained unweakened through the millenia. The Moria Balrog may well have been the last of its kind. When compared to Gothmog it must have been inferior, perhaps it was lesser than some of the other Balrogs as well. It's the same with Smaug, who is a great dragon in his own right, but inferior to Glaurung and Ancalagon.


----------



## Snaga (Sep 24, 2005)

I was certainly making such a case. Gandalf's remark at Bag End that "there is not now any dragon left on earth in which the old fire is hot enough" is certainly suggestive of a decline. Balrogs are all maia corrupted, dragons are hatched from eggs, whether Glaurung was maia or not. As I noted before, the decline of the giant spiders parallels this decline.


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 24, 2005)

Were dragons weaker in the latter ages? Possibly. Most of the winged dragons were only released at the end of the War of Wrath, and most of them would have been slain-a few escaped that is for sure, but I guess it may have been merely the insignificant ones, the smaller ones, or perhaps the babies, neglected by the Valarin hosts as they attempted to capture Melkor. I guess the winged dragons came from these weaker or younger creations of Morgoth, and thus their genes were 'defective' in that they did not come from a great dragon such as Ancalagon or Glaurung but a weaker one-just as Shelob's kids weren't as tought as her mothers. I guess as the ages passed many things became less terrible or strong-though that is not to say that the T.A dragons were 'weak'-far from it, they were just weaker than forces which had always been 'strong' or stronger than them-such as the Balrogs, who never declined in strength, or so I think.


----------



## Hammersmith (Sep 24, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> While the race of Dragons could over the generations weaken the same could not be true of Balrogs. The Balrog of Moria was the same one that escaped the ruin of Angband and helped terrorise the Elves in the First Age


 That's exactly what I was inferring 



Ithrynluin said:


> If I understand what you're getting at correctly...I don't think Balrogs remained unweakened through the millenia. The Moria Balrog may well have been the last of its kind. When compared to Gothmog it must have been inferior, perhaps it was lesser than some of the other Balrogs as well. It's the same with Smaug, who is a great dragon in his own right, but inferior to Glaurung and Ancalagon.


I mean (as above) that the Balrog would be an original brand, and thus unweakened by any breeding or intermingling or however the dragons were watered down. And I like Inderjit's hypothesis for the dragons' weakening.


----------



## Snaga (Sep 25, 2005)

Just remember the next time you pass a lizard sitting on a rock, its just a dragon that declined! Beware its eggs: one of its hatchlings might have a regressive Ancalagon gene!


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Sep 25, 2005)

One quote I will throw out from _The Hobbit_:


> There were lots of dragons in the North in those days, and gold was probably getting scarce up there, with the dwarves flying south or getting killed, and all the general waste and destruction that dragons make going from bad to worse. *There was a most specially greedy, strong and wicked worm called Smaug.*One day he flew up into the air and came south. . . .


Now this could of course only mean that Smaug was especially strong and wicked in comparisson with the other dragons of the time. But it could also mean that he was plain and simply an especially strong and wicked dragon period: at that time and at any other time.


----------



## Hammersmith (Sep 25, 2005)

You really like old Smaug, don't you? 
While I've always read that passage as "he was much more powerful in comparison to the stunted dragons of that time" (I think coloured that way by another quote that I completely forget), I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll admit that it *might *be saying how he was great in power out of all dragons in history *if *you admit that this power was in his day a severe abnormality.


----------



## Arvedui (Sep 26, 2005)

So you think that the Balrogs were something extremely special, right?

But if they were so immensely great, why did Morgoth breed the Dragons?

I bet that will give you something to think about, eh? (or perhaps not...)


----------



## Ithrynluin (Sep 26, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> I'll admit that it *might *be saying how he was great in power out of all dragons in history *if *you admit that this power was in his day a severe abnormality.



I personally believe this was the case. Smaug strikes me as a great dragon. The fact that he was destroyed by a mere mortal does not diminish his greatness, just as the fact Sauron was finally destroyed by some sort of halfling (Gollum) does not mean he was one of the greatest Maiar (if not _the_ greatest). It was simply a very unlikely coincidence, unfathomable to Smaug (or Sauron).

Smaug also bore the epithet 'Golden', which was previously held by Glaurung (and Ar-Pharazon, since we're at it, though in his case it may have been self-styled), which also seems to hint at his greatness.



Arvedui said:


> So you think that the Balrogs were something extremely special, right?
> 
> But if they were so immensely great, why did Morgoth breed the Dragons?



Because he needed _more_ to take down the Elven realms. It's like saying "If Morgoth was really the greatest Vala, how come he couldn't defeat the Noldor. Ergo, Morgoth was not the greatest Vala. What is more, he was not great at all."


----------



## Hammersmith (Sep 26, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> So you think that the Balrogs were something extremely special, right?
> 
> But if they were so immensely great, why did Morgoth breed the Dragons?
> 
> I bet that will give you something to think about, eh? (or perhaps not...)



I don't know where Inderjit gets the following quote from


Inderjit S said:


> Balrogs were the more powerful IMO, since Tolkien deemed it fit to reduce their number to 7 and they were the greatest Maia in his service. Though there may have been a few exceptions, such as Glaurung.
> 
> Thorondor-I see no point on producing quotes from BoLT, since Balrogs then were vastly different from what they later became.


but if accurate, 7 balrogs would be a small amount to rule a third of the world with. I see the dragon breeding as a quantity over quality measure, and perhaps even the limit of Melkor's creative or corruptive ability.


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 26, 2005)

The quote he is refering to can be found in HoME 10 Morgoth's Ring in the 'Commentary on the second section of the Annals of Aman.'


> $50 'a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained' ) 'his Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained faithful to him'. *In the margin my father wrote: 'There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed.'* See p. ?9, $50.


----------



## baragund (Sep 26, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> So you think that the Balrogs were something extremely special, right?
> 
> But if they were so immensely great, why did Morgoth breed the Dragons?



Particularly if Balrogs had wings (aieeee!!! The Mother of All Digressions!)


----------



## Hammersmith (Sep 27, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> The quote he is refering to can be found in HoME 10 Morgoth's Ring in the 'Commentary on the second section of the Annals of Aman.'


And that's why we all love you Gothmog!


----------



## Ithrynluin (Sep 27, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> And that's why we all love you Gothmog!



Of course you love him. Would you honestly dare to tell a Balrog otherwise to his face?


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Sep 27, 2005)

Maybe not a Balrog . . . but if a dragon (i.e. Smaug) were to come around I might have the confidence to tell him (the dragon).


----------



## Arvedui (Sep 28, 2005)

baragund said:


> Particularly if Balrogs had wings (aieeee!!! The Mother of All Digressions!)



They did not!
But don't reopen that path to self-destruction, please.


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 28, 2005)

Arvedui-Well the Noldor were like the best Elves ever-it would take far more than a few hundred-thousand Orks and Balrogs as well as other Maia to beat them. (And the Edain.) The dragons seem to have been pretty destructive wherever they went-the Nirnaeth, Nargothrond and the War of Wrath. Morgoth was, I guess, always seeking to create something new and powerful.


----------



## Ingwë (Oct 4, 2005)

*Of dragons*



Snaga said:


> My own view on this is that whilst Balrogs are all maia, dragons (like giant spiders) are not. But it appears to me likely (although there is no direct evidence) that Glaurung and maybe Ancalagon were maia, but their descendants were not.


Glaurung and Ancalagon - Maiar, but their descendants not? Hm... According to the Silmarilion Glauring was the first dragon and one of the most powerful (I think that there is only one dragon more powerful than him - that is Ancalagon; however, I suppose that Glaurung was more evil  ) and the other dragons are his descendants. If you're right the other dragons will be half-Maia. How can they be born? Melian (Maia) and Thin (Elf) have a child but she has parents. And can you explain why Anc is a Maia and the other dragons (they're all descendants (long word  of Glauring) are not. I'm pretty sure that the dragons aren't Maiar.


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 4, 2005)

Well, to answer that we need to know where the first dragons came from. If they are indeed parentless Maia that solves a problem, but we need at least two together to breed. Maybe there was a small pool of dragon maia for Morgoth to choose from, and they later interbred with something else...snakes, for lack of suitable candidates. Or even eagles. The later dragons were less powerful than their Maia predacessors, yet still had Maia blood in addition to whatever they were watered down with.

That's all supposition really, but there's a variant of logic behind it. Once again I wait for an appropriate quote from one of the wise elders


----------



## Ingwë (Oct 5, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> . Maybe there was a small pool of dragon maia for Morgoth to choose from, and they later interbred with something else...snakes, for lack of suitable candidates. Or even eagles. The later dragons were less powerful than their Maia predacessors, yet still had Maia blood in addition to whatever they were watered down with.


But Ancalagon is the most powerful dragon. If you're right Ancalagon would be one of the predacessors. But he's not.


----------



## Hammersmith (Oct 6, 2005)

Ingwë said:


> But Ancalagon is the most powerful dragon. If you're right Ancalagon would be one of the predacessors. But he's not.


Drat. You're right. Unless...hm, I'm not good with remembering the Sil, and my copy's in England right now. What if he's a Maiar, yet for whatever reason incubated himself away from the fighting, emerging later to start off a new strain of bad-class dragons?


----------



## Ingwë (Oct 6, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> What if he's a Maiar, yet for whatever reason incubated himself away from the fighting, emerging later to start off a new strain of bad-class dragons?


Hm... Maybe  but at least he was created later than Glaurung  


> There came wolves, and wolfriders, and there came Balrogs, and dragons, and *Glaurung father of dragons*.


What does it mean? That he is the father of the Dragons or that he's the first Dragon? 

Glaurung is the father of the Dragons. Then Ancalagon is a descendant of a Maia and has the power of the Maiar. But then Glaurung has more power and Anc is not the most powerful dragon. However, we know that he is. And other idea: G. is the father of the Dragons but they also have a mother  !
Glaurung is just the first Dragon. Then you may be right  Anc has just been created later


----------



## Inderjit S (Oct 7, 2005)

Tolkien talks about Maia procreation in Myths Transformed-he came to the conclusion that some of them were able to incarnate themselves and procreate with other beings, he also though that some of the more powerful Orks may have been Maia, some of whom may have mated with Orks. He saw this incarnation as a 'negative' thing-that Maia should embody themselves and procreate, with the obvious exception of Melian, so I guess dragons could be embodied Maia, though I guess there had to be some sort of non-Maia dragon for them to mate with, or perhaps they mated with Maia or Morgoth made their bodies.


----------



## Azaghal (Feb 2, 2013)

In my humble opinion Glaurung is a Maia in big reptile shape,other dragons can be considered his sons with same look but different or lesser powers.
Just like Ungoliant and her sons,the spiders,a Maia in a spider form that creates a new race with the same shape as the first being,but lesser power.
Could it be the same process?


----------

