The only evidence I can present to you is that the quote I gave was from LotR, which was published by J.R.R.T. himself, and therefore the standard to which all other Middle-earth texts are compared. It is the only true 'canon' Middle-earth text. So if the Unfinished Tales quote you brought up conflicts with the LotR I gave, it must be an outdated notion or a slip-up. I don't believe that it conflicts, however, and I showed you the reasons for that -- Dragons are beasts, like Carcharoth or Draugluin, whereas Balrogs are soldiers, akin to Sauron and even Morgoth himself.

You want convincing evidence that spiritual puissance makes a difference? How were the Nine driven into the waters of Bruinen by Glorfindel? How did bent, wrinkled Gandalf defeat a Balrog? Why was Fingolfin's duel with Morgoth utterly futile? The potency of spirit is a tremendously important part of the conflicts in Tolkien's writings. You can't overestimate it.

I disagree. The tank is only useful at long range, and only if the general is vulnerable to its firepower. Also, the Dragon is not impervious to the Balrog's attacks, unlike the tank to the general's. But this illustration can only take us so far. I can't prove it to you because I cannot produce a documented duel between a Balrog and a Dragon.

Even though Unfinished Tales has been - ahem - discredited as not canon (to which I must vehemently disagree), I read some of the descriptions of Glaurung. He appears to be far tougher than Smaug was ever described to be. That may be because of the audience of The Hobbit. However, the unique thing about Glaurung, whom JRRT describes as the greatest of the dragons, is that he HAS MORGOTH'S SPIRIT WITHIN HIM. Therefore I must side with obloquy regarding the puissance of spirit (sorry I'm sobre now), while NOT overlooking the fundamental reality of physicality. Glaurung's puissance was evoked in two ways: (1) his reeeelly bad smell and firey breath and largeness of size; and (2) his cunning which was given to him by Morgoth. Of the two, his cunning and his strategems were by far the more powerful of the two, meaning that his SPIRIT/intelligence got him further than his strength; and I do not deny the importance of his physical strength.

The soldier - tank analogy is helpful, but we better not get too tied to it. I can't say why, I'm not smart enough. It does speak to a sense that I had, but the best words I could put on it were - um - a man and a dog. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

If we were to pit Glaurung against a Balrog, now there we might have a real battle! No cowardice there.

By the way, I'd like to set the record straight on one thing. The Balrogs are not bodiless. They are beings made of fire, as far as I can tell, but they DO have a physical presence.

Okay, lots of points here. I'm afraid that I am going out the door to class and I don't have time to answer them right now. But I'd like to clear up a misunderstanding.

I did not mean to sound like I was doubting the importance of the spiritual. What I was doubting was that a Balrog would have such a significant spiritual advantage over a Dragon as to be decisive.

More later... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I don't dispute UT's canon, I was just making a point. Nonetheless, where certain points conflict with LotR, we have to disregard them. As I said, I don't believe the UT quote is contradictory to the LotR quote.

I also agree that the tank and general analogy is not appropriate for anything more than my original purpose -- as mere comparison.

I thank you, littlemanpoet, for bringing up the point about Glaurung being inhabited by Morgoth's spirit. It was gnawing at my brain, and I wanted to mention it, but I couldn't find where I had read it so I avoided bringing it into the discussion.

Have to run now, but I will check on this thread later.

Okay, it's later. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

First, most tanks have shorter range weapons to take care of particularly aggressive enemies that get underneath the range of their big gun. You're not helping yourself with that analogy.

I do have a theory for looking at the passage about Morgoth's spirit.

A few days ago Thingol said that it did not say in the books that Morgoth put any of his power into Balrogs. Now that I have had (a very little) time to check I find that he is right. However, I was able to find some other things that are kind of interesting. Essentially it boils down to the fact that everything has something of Morgoth's spirit in it. That is what is meant by the phrase Arda Marred. Everything has some "Morgoth Element" in it's make up. What does this have to do with Balrogs and Dragons you ask?

Well, in another example, Morgoth's words to Ungoliant were, "For with my power that I put into thee thy work accomplished. Ungoliant was as far as anyone can tell was also a Maiar, yet Morgoth put his power into her to increase her strength. I think it a reasonable assumption that he did the same thing with Balrogs and Dragons. He put his power into the World to ruin it, and he put his power into his servants to strengthen them and increase the ruin. Balrogs were definitely Maiar, but they were apparently weaker than Ungoliant. If Melkor strengthened a greater being like Ungoliant with a part of his spirit, would it not make sense for him to do so with Balrogs as well.

While it's not certain that Dragons had Maiar spirits inside of them, they certainly had something because he spoke, "by the evil spirit within him." Some will no doubt argue that this is Morgoth's spirit, but I think that some of it at least was the spirit of some other entity because Glaurung had a rather independent streak.

I'd like to go on a little longer but I'm out of time (again)...

I do not think that Melkor ever put any of his power into the Balorgs. It explicitly states that Melkor put forth his power into beings whenever he did so. It explicitly states that he put forth his power into Ungoliant, into the Dragons, into Charchoth, into Arda itself, etc... The reason he put forth his power into Ungoliant was because the task that they set out to accomplish was exceptionally dangerous and difficult. They went into the very heart of the Valar's realm and destroyed the Two Trees. Balrogs are totally independent of Morgoth. It is uncertain whether or not any of the Dragons fled or were merely driven off, but it is explicitly stated that some (perhaps only 1) Balrog(s)rebelled against Melkor and fled. However, I guess that the assumption that things that have recieved the power of Melkor partially lose the ability to make their own descissions is flawed because Ungoliant certainly had a will of her own that was quite different from Melkor's. I just think that Tolkien would have mentioned it if Melkor had infused the Balrogs with his own power, considering he explicitly stated all the other instances where Melkor let his power pass into other creatures. The Balrogs were Melkor's elite force and I think Tolkien would have said so if Melkor enhanced them with his power.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

Yes, as I've said twice before, the tank analogy has served its purpose -- comparison -- and has become stretched.

Actually, I don't know of any evidence to support this (that Ungoliante was a Maia). I would find it hard to believe she had a spirit of any less potential than a typical Vala, since it is said that, after being fed from the trees and jewels, Morgoth was unable to master her. As for the 'with my power' bit, I can't find where that comes from. It's in the published Silmarillion, but the original text doesn't seem to be contained in HoMe. Unless I missed it somewhere, I would be careful not to assume too much based on Morgoth's wording. The concept of Morgoth actually channeling his power into another being is rather dubious. But you're right about the "Morgoth element": all physical matter had this evil property. The matter that Balrogs created their physical bodies with; the matter that Ungoliante used to create her physical form; and likely the same matter that was used in the devising of Dragons. Spirits like the Balrogs or Ungoliante were probably somewhat attuned to this little bit of Morgoth in each of them.

I pointed out above that Dragons were bred by Morgoth. There is the possibility that they were a Balrog/reptile hybrid, as hideous as the idea is. In any case, they occupied a different position than the Balrogs in Morgoth's armies. They never held ranks or commanded troops, and were never spoken of as 'most deadly of Morgoth's servants,' but rather as 'most fell among Morgoth's creatures.' I think the former is clearly a much broader statement.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ]

The erudition of you guys is staggering! No joke. I am definitely rereading The Simlarillion in its entirety. Way to go, guys. It's been too long. On to the quotes:

Granted.

You're welcome, obloquy.

I'll take your word for it.

Kuruharan: From my reading of all the Glaurung texts in The Silmarillion and many in the UT, it is clear that the Morgoth spirit in Glaurung was more powerful than in most servants of Morgoth. Also, it is clear (at least to me) from the readings that if it were not for the Morgoth spirit in Glaurung, he would be no more and no less than a giant serpent with the intelligence and instincts of a serpent. The Morgoth spirit it him appears to be what gave him his sentience.

Please provide examples of this, Kuruharan.

Please provide some evidence for this, Thingol.

I think the texts bear this out, as you show, Thingol. On Balrogs, I was hesitant, but reading "Of the Enemies" in The Silmarillion leads me to accept your thought that To say that the Balrogs were totally independent of Morgoth, and that they were his elite force, is to say two different things.

In The Silmarillion, "Of the Darkening of Valinor", it says, "...but some have said...when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the Kingdom of Manwe, and that in the beginning [Ungoliant] was one of those that he corrupted to his service. But she had disowned her Master..." This supports that she was a Maia, and that she did have a will of her own.

[img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] What more can I say? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

Thank you! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Thingol:
I'm afraid that I have to say that I find your reasoning for this unconvincing because of your own point.
To me this seems like added reason for Melkor to give them extra power, so that they would be more effective. No, you are right that it isn't explicitly stated, but why would Melkor not give the Balrogs some of his powers. He put some of his power into everything else, why leave his elite stormtroopers out?
There is a interesting passage in the section about the Enemies.
It's the treacherous gifts that bears emphasis. I think that this could be a vague reference to Melkor giving some of his power to Balrogs. What I mean is that these guys are spirit. What sort of gift could a spirit be given? An increase in power is what jumps to mind.
Tolkien may not have said anything because he assumed that we would take it for granted that Melkor put some of his power into Balrogs. (Well, actually I suspect it's because he was not expecting people years later to be splitting his sentences apart exploring all the possible hidden meanings behind everything. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

obloquy:
Ah, now here's an interesting point. It is rather difficult to get to the truth behind something when those who know the most about a thing are pathological liers by nature. However, Morgoth is spoken of in several places as spending his spirit on his servants so I think that we can take it that some sort of power transfer was taking place.
Okay, a couple of things about this. Glaurung became a "Dragon-king of Nargothrond" after the sack of Nargothrond, commanding orcs in his own right. He led orcs in the sack of Nargothrond as a matter of fact. (Note how he deprived them of their plunder.)
I think that it would be helpful to remember the relative positions of Voronwe and Tuor to the Morgothers. They were enemies. (I know this seems ridiculously obvious, but please follow me for a minute.) Sometimes the word "creatures" can be used as a put-down for somebody you are speaking unfavorably about. I think that may be what is going on here. Voronwe is speaking in disgust about his enemies, and lumping them all together under the insulting word "creatures." I doubt that in his fear and disgust he was being technical as to whether or not Morgoth had 'bred' the bodies of particular servants. He was speaking in shock and horror.

littlemanpoet:
No arguments on that point here. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Certainly. When Glaurung first appeared it was during the Seige of Angband when he tried to break through the leaguer. This was not the will of Morgoth. The text states that Morgoth was angry at Glaurung for this. I think that somewhere it said that Glaurung delighted in tormenting Turin to gratify his own malice, as opposed to just the malice of his master, like there was some seperation between their spirits.

Did somebody way back in the thread mention Carcharoth? I can't find it. Maybe it was another thread. Anyway, I think a comparison with Carcharoth might be instructive here.
Here Morgoth put his power on Carcharoth, and a spirit entered into him. I think that something similar may have happened with Dragons. Morgoth found a big lizard, put his power on it, and then a Maiar spirit entered into the Dragon. I think that may be a reasonable explanation of the whole combination of Morgoth's power and independent Maiar spirit thing. Obviously the Balrogs and Ungoliant were the reverse of this process, but I think that the example is still illuminating (if you can call it that considering what we are dealing with. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

When Morgoth fell asleep when Beren and Luthien took the Silmaril, all the hosts of Angband fell asleep with him. It did not say that the hosts of Angband, except Balrogs, fell asleep. All were put to sleep. I think this shows some sort of relationship between the spirits of Balrogs and the spirit of Morgoth.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

Quoth the poet:
It supports that she was a spirit that Morgoth corrupted, but that does not necessarily mean Maia.

Silmarillion

The actual meaning of this passage may be that he corrupted other Maiar with gifts, after the days of his greatness, but the possibility that "others" is intended more broadly cannot be denied. In fact, the labels "Valar" and "Maiar" seem to be not so much the name of their species or race, but simply titles given to the station they occupy within Arda. That Melkor could be "no longer counted among the Valar" shows us that one could be excluded from this order. The Valar were "the powers," and the Maiar were "the people of the Valar." This allows that Ungoliante was actually neither, as well as any other Ainu who may have descended into Arda without being designated Valar (as Tulkas was), or without subjecting themselves to a Vala for servitude (Tom Bombadil?! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]). On an aside, perhaps the innate power of the Ainu (before it became either Vala or Maia) determined to which group it would belong, and not the other way around -- in other words, it is possible that these unassigned Ainur had power to rival the Valar. Theoretically. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Here is a quote to support my argument above:
Silmarillion

If Ungoliante had served Morgoth when he was still among the Valar, she would, by definition, be a Maia. But as soon as she forsook him, would she not then be an unaffiliated Ainu? Did Sauron ever become an unaffiliated Ainu, rather than a Maia of Morgoth, formerly of Aule? Did Melian's life in Beleriand remove her from the service of Vana and Este, and thus also from the order of Maiar? Though all these would remain Ainur, could the title of Maia still be applied to them?

I don't think Morgoth was so generous. He would have feared rebellion and usurpation if they became too powerful. He may have told them he was enhancing them, but I highly doubt he would have actually done so (hence "treacherous gifts"). As for Glaurung, I would say that the spirit of Morgoth within him is not Morgoth's power, but Morgoth's malice and hate.

Could you direct me to some of these places? I know he squandered his spirit in devising new evils, corrupting races (Trolls, Orcs), and breeding new beasts (Glaurung [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]), but this does not necessarily mean enhancing the spirit of these creatures with his own.

This I disagree with just because I do. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Could he not then also have exaggerated a bit?

Do you mean to say that Morgoth was sustaining all of his hordes by his own power, like a puppeteer? And that they fell asleep only because Morgoth did? No, I think it's more reasonable to assume that they had all been affected by the same spell.

I hate to cop-out on you, but the truth is, if you say your quote doesn't conflict with mine, then Balrogs were more powerful since "servants" encompasses more than "creatures" (in this context). If you say the quotes do conflict, then the LotR one must stand as the answer to the question.

I have to go now, so I apologize for any errors that I may have been able to catch with sufficient time to go over the post again and edit. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

MT

This is a useful quote to support my contention that the power Morgoth put into his servants was to control them, rather than to enhance them.

Here's another one, also from Myths Transformed in an Author's note:
The power he put into them also served to allow them to recuperate and multiply on their own, perpetuating his evil even after he was imprisoned.

And with that I must go, yet again. I shall be back later!

The Big East Tourney is on right now so I'll try to be brief (for once).

Okay, I'll buy the renegade Ainu theory for Ungoliant (although if a Ainu wasn't a Valar, I thought that they were by default a Maiar whether they were speifically serving one of the Valar or not).

I do not believe it was a matter of being generous. It was a matter of making his fighters as effective as possible. I believe that the treacherous part was while it enhanced their powers, it also created a dependence on Melkor on the part of those who accepted those gifts.
In answer to the puppeteer part the answer is in a way, yes. I believe that there was some sort of puppeteer relationship between the Dark Lords and their minions. Remember how the orcs of Sauron were running about all distraught when the Ring was destroyed because there was no will there to direct them. I think a comparison with Aule is instructive in this case. Remember how when he created the Dwarves, Iluvatar told him that they were utterly dependent on him for their existance, and if Aule happened to be thinking about something else then the Dwarves would simply stand idle. I think the relationship between Morgoth and his hordes was similar.
And, as powerful as Luthien was, I think it is just a bit much to think that her spell was able to cast all the hosts of Angband into sleep. If she could do that then why didn't the Valar (beings of much greater power) do something similar, and then they would not have missed those Balrogs and Sauron?
Moving down to your second post for just a second since it deals with the same thing, I think that it is a combination of both control and enhancement. For creatures like orcs multiplication and recuperation would be good things to have. For creatures like Balrogs and Dragons thinks like having a power of terror and cunning would be very good things indeed.

Um, which quotes contradicting each other are you referring to? There have been so many quotes used that it's hard to keep track! I would feel rather foolish constructing a big huge explanation only to find out that you had not been talking about that particular quote at all! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Gotta go! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I believe the two conflicting quotes that Obloquy was referring to are the one by Legolas and the one by Voronwe. As Obloquy pointed out that by interpreting Voronwe's quote in the matter in which you prefer it comes into conflict with Legolas' quote in The Fellowship of the Ring. In a conflict between the two quotes Legolas' quote has to be considered cannon because it is from The Lord of the Rings. Because of this it makes more sense to interpret Voronwe's quote in the manner in which myself and Obloquy have previously stated. Let me attempt one more analogy on Balrogs and Dragons. Sauron is diminutive compared to a Dragon such as Smaug or Glaurung, but would you say that a Dragon would be able to defeat Sauron in a duel? I hope not. Allow me to take it one step further, Melkor, after he destroys the two trees, is also tiny compared to a Dragon, but even after Melkor squandered most of his power I would not say that he was weaker than even Ancalgon the Black. The Balrogs were of the same order of Sauron and akin to Melkor, being his servants from before Arda was created. Manwe tells Feanor that even if he were 100 times more powerful his war on Melkor would still be hopeless. This is not because the elves could never physically defeat Melkor, (They kept him bottled up for several hundred years, and if it wasn't for Ulfang they probably would have been able to destroy his armies and break Angbad) it was because Melkor's spirit was too great to be conquered by anyone but the Valar. Unlike the Dragon's Melkor could not have been physically destroyed unless his spirit could be conquered. Even if Fingolofin had stabbed Melkor 100 times, he still would not have killed him. The same seems to be true of the Balrogs. -Gandalf, The Bridge of Khazud-Dum

On the other hand Dragon's do not need to be defeated on a spiritual level to be killed. In more general terms, if a Balrog had marched (possibly even flew [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]) into Lake Town and started destroying the town, Bard could have shot the Balrog as full as a pin cushion with arrows and the Balrog still would not have died. In the Seven Thanes of Morgoth thread Obloquy eloquently states that in their final conception Tolkien envisioned Balrogs as a kind of creature that had no match among the Free Peoples, more powerful than Elves, and virtually untouchable by Men.

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

I thought those were probably the ones that he was referring to. However, if that is the case, there is a long digression that I will feel obligated to make, so I want to make sure before doing so. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] (Although if obloquy doesn't pipe up soon, I may go ahead and do it anyway.)

Ah, the cycle begins anew...
Obviously on the point of whether or not Balrogs and Dragons have relatively equal spirits there is never going to be agreement, because I believe that the spirits of Dragons were Maiar as well, and it's not likely that you'll be able to find a way to dissuade me on that point. It's just about as unlikely that I'll ever be able to convince you two that while the spirit of a Dragon may not have been quite equal to that of a Balrog, it was close enough to prevent the Balrog always having such a decided advantage. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this because spirits can't be destroyed by anyone but Iluvatar. Their bodies are a different matter altogether. As you yourself have pointed out, Balrog's bodies were killed.

He might very well have said the same thing if a Dragon had come blazing across the Bridge. I don't think that you are fully appreciating the situation. The primary goal was not to kill the Balrog, it was to allow the Ringbearer to get out of there alive and continue the Quest.

You do not know this. What if Legolas had been able to pull himself together and shoot the Balrog while it was distracted by Gandalf? He might have hit a weak spot in its armor for all we know. While I personally don't think that Balrogs had wings and thus would not be able to fly over Laketown reeking havoc, I think it might be possible to kill a Balrog by shooting it in the back or something while it was distracted by town baiting. They were not immune to weapons. Ecthelion apparently killed a Balrog with his helmet spike, why wouldn't swords and arrows hurt them? Gandalf said that he hewed the Balrog with his sword as if he thought that doing so would do some good.

Couple of things, Gothmog did not kill Hurin, in fact he seems not to have engaged him at all. He did kill Faenor and Fingon, but one time he had his whole bunch there together, and the other time he only downed Fingon after one of his cronies snuck up from behind and cast a thong of fire about Fingon. As far as we know Turin never met a Balrog, and he only managed to kill Glaurung by sneaking up underneath him while he was crossing a gorge. Glaurung had personally wasted thousands of Elves and Men before.

But all of this is really irrelevant to the discussion. What we are trying to decide is how well they would do against each other.

I agree with this in a way, but totally disagree with the way that you are discounting their spiritual power. Dragons clearly had spiritual power in the way that they could ensnare people with their spell.
What I agree with is that you did not necessarily have to encounter them on that level to kill them. I rather doubt that in the heat of battle you had a great deal of time to be worrying about the spiritual power of your opponent. You are just trying to hack to pieces whatever happens to be in front of you.

Even if the spirit that inhabits a Dragon is a Maia it did not construct its own Hroa (body) and has become completely trapped on the physical plain. On the other hand Balrogs created their own Hroa and seem to be able to manipulate their form, at least to some extent. The manner in which the Balrogs are described also lends credence to the assumption that they are still deeply connected to the magical or spiritual realm. As for what I mean by the duel between Fingolofin and Melkor I mean that Fingolofin could never have destroyed Melkor's physical form, even if he had stabbed him 100 times. The reason Glorfindel's helmut spike was able to kill Gothmog was because Gothmog was defeated on a spiritual level first. In all of the instances where a Balrog was killed I contend that the Balrog must have been defeated on a spiritual level first. Gandalf's quote supports this theory, Swords are no more use here. Because of this there is no way that a stray arrow would have been able to kill a Balrog. On the other hand Dragons clearly do not need to be defeated on the spiritual level to be defeated. The manner in which the Dragons are described is always physically terrifying; the description of Durin's bane is very different. As I've stated before in all of the major duels Tolkien spends practically no time describing the physical battle. This is not because Tolkien couldn't or because there is less to describe, Tolkien was certainly capable of creating a vivid description of a physical duel, it was because he chose not to. I'm curious to know if you would put the Dragons above Sauron or even Melkor (in his reduced state) simply because the Dragons are much larger and physically impressive Kuruharan?

Certainly not above Morgoth. He was a Vala and of a higher order of creation than the Maiar. He was also their master, and they were at least to a degree under his thrall.
Sauron, well Sauron is probably of a different type than the spirits of Balrogs and Dragons. I don't mean that he was a different type of Maia, I mean that his personality, skills, and powers were different. He was a controller, administrator, and leader. And note that everytime that he went into combat himself, he lost. He was beaten by Huan, he was personally defeated by Gil-Galad and Elendil, fighting just does not seem to be his thing.
Where does it say that Balrogs constructed their own hroa?
Just because Gandalf said that the Balrog had become "a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake" does not mean that the Balrog had assumed the form of a snake. It was a metaphor. I think the ability for them to increase the relative fire or darkness was just another useful function that their hroa could perform depending on the need. It would be a nice trick.
Again, I must say, you don't know this.
Well, it was Ecthelion's helmet spike, but I still rather doubt that they had a great deal of time for spiritual victories or defeats with a big battle swirling about them. If you mean that the individual in question had to overcome the terror of a Balrog before fighting it, that would also hold true for a dragon. Especially if you were silly enough to look into a Dragon's eyes (*cough* Turin *cough*).

Yeah, I meant Ecthillion, sorry about that. The difference between the Dragons and Balrogs is that the spirits of Dragon's (be they Maia or Elf) entered into an already existing creature that Melkor had bred. On the other hand the spirits of Balrogs did not enter into any beast, but were incarnated into a body that they created. This is exactly what happened to Melkor. The Balrog is able to draw itself up to a great height, fire blazes forth from its body, and it certainly has control over the shadow that surrounds it. I did not say that it actually changed its shape after it fell into the water with Gandalf, I understand that the snake comment was only a metaphor. Anyway before I respond to the rest of your last post I want to quote from the Letters of Tolkien in an attempt to clear up the nature of magic in Middle Earth. Some of this is not very pertinent to the Balrog/Dragon debate, but interesting none the less. Letter #155

In Tolkien's Middle Earth magic is the ability of ones Fea to affect the physical world. The elves specialize in using their Fea to create what Tolkien calls art, but they are also capable of using their spirit in a destructive way. The same is true of the enemies, but they choose to use their power to dominate others. It is important to note that men do not have this ability. The spirits of men are not bound to the Earth and subsequently have very little power to physically affect the world. The only slight exception to this is the Númenóreans sword craft. However, this is not the same as elven magic, it is lore. Lore is the ability to create items of magical properties. The power that comes from lore does not reside in men, it comes from the item the man is wielding. The reason I am brining this up is because it shows the nature of magic in Tolkien's works and the relative impotence of man's magical/spiritual power. My main point is that even though the spiritual/magical power of men is no where close to that of an elf, let alone a Maia, they are still able to slay Dragons. While I can not prove beyond a doubt that the Balrog can not be destroyed without first being defeated, or at least stunned, on a spiritual level I think it is a reasonable assumption. If this is not the case then how else can you explain the futility of Fingolofin's duel or Manwe's statement that Feanor's war against Melkor was doomed to failure? I don't see any reason why a great spiritual/magical battle couldn't have taken place in the midst of a great battle. The Witch King harnesses his magical power to break the gates of Minas Tirith in the midst of a great battle and moments later a spiritual/magical confrontation occurs between Gandalf and The Witch King.

Thanks, Thingol, for the quotes on magic vs. goetia and the helpful conclusions regarding human magic. I would add a caution in one regard, though. You tend to describe the physical and spiritual battles as rather separate affairs, taking place perhaps at the same place, but not necessarily at the same time. I think that in both Tolkien's mythos and in reality (on which his mythos is healthily based), the physical and spiritual dimensions are not so easily teased out. I would go so far as to say that they cannot be so teased out one from the other. An author must make it appear so to some degree just because it's so hard to describe both at the same time. Tolkien was an exception of genius in this regard, but that also has to do with the fact that he was writing myth rather than just a novel. To sum up, I think that the Balrog was both physical and spiritual at once, and the battle with Gandalf was both physical and spiritual at once, and it clouds the issue to read into Tolkien's story an invisible spiritual battle that he does not even describe.

While the actual spiritual battle is not described, the reader does see the reflection of this battle on the physical world. For the most part this reflection is in the form of a white light shining through the body of one of the good guys vs. a dark cloud emanating from one of the bad guys. In addition when the Witch King unleashes his power the entire battle stops and he seems to grow larger and more terrible. I agree with you littlemanpoet, that the spiritual/magical battle occurs simultaneously with the physical battle. For example it is a combination of magical power (the Witch King's spell) and physical power (Grond) that breaks the gates of Minas Tirith. Although Grond was a weapon of lore, so it was a double dose of magic. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] However, I believe that the spiritual battle is more important than the physical battle, even if they are occuring at the same time. I've said it before, but I'll say it again, Melkor was not able to be defeated by the Noldor because his spirit was too great to overcome, not because he was too physically powerful. Also in the Valaquenta Sauron is described as the greatest of Melkor's servants. As I type this I notice the word servant is used to describe Sauron. I haven't looked, but I'd be willing to wager that all of the Maia that are described are described as servants and not creatures. Tolkien was very careful with the use of language, and I doubt it is coincidental that the Maia are referred to as servants and the rest of Melkor's armies as creatures. I think this pretty much proves that Voronwe's comment does not conflict with Legolas' comment to Celeborn (I also noticed that neither Celeborn nor Galadriel correct Legolas).

I like the section on the nature of magic. That is probably one of the most misunderstood aspects of Tolkien's world.

I explain it by saying that we are not talking about the same thing. You are talking about Elves vs. Valar. I'm talking about Balrogs (Maiar) vs. Dragons (Maiar).

Excellent way of looking at it. That was more or less what I was trying to get out, although you did it in a much more coherent fashion.

You're still looking at them as being two different things. What littlemanpoet is saying is that the two are closely interconnected, not that they are just occurring at the same time.

I still say, in spite of obloquy's objection, that 'creatures' was a negative and all inclusive term for the entirety of Morgoth's forces.

I can see that I am going to have to go on my big, long digression. (oh, goodie [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) Unfortunately, it is very long and I can't do it now, I'll have to come back and do it later. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Had either one of them ever been in the presence of a Balrog or a Dragon? Would they know?

Again, I have to go back to the point of the Balrogs escorting Glaurung at the Battle of Sudden Flame, as if they were subordinated to him in some way.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

Had Voronwe ever been in the presence of a Balrog or a Dragon? Also Glaurung may have just been able to move faster. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Also at the time of the writing of the Dagor Bragollach Balrogs may not have taken on the same significance that they had in the Lord of the Rings. At one point there were thousands of Balrogs that rode on mechanical dragons. Later the number might have been reduced to as little as 3. I'm not positive of when the Dagor Bragollach was written, but I'm sure Obloquy or someone will correct me if it was written after the Lord of the Rings. Even assuming that the Balrogs had taken on the same significance at this time I see nothing wrong with the Balrogs escorting Glaurung in the battle. Obloquy and I have said that the specialty of Dragons was in fighting against armies, not in fighting duels. It would make sense in a large battle to have a Dragon lead the charge, since they possess the greatest physical destructive power and the strategy of Morgoth in the Dagor Bragollach was to surprise the Noldor with an incredibly destructive first blow. The Noldor were driven back so suddenly that they did not have a chance to regroup. However, in Tolkien's works combat during a battle is different from a duel between two foes of great strength. As for Vala/elf and Maia /elf not being the same you are missing my point. The only distinction between a Vala and a Maia is in the degree of power. The point I am trying to make is that the same relationship exists between a battle between a Vala and an elf and a battle between a Maia and an elf. If the spirit of a Vala has to be overcome in order for it to be slain then the same is true of a Maia. Both the Maia and the Valar are Ainur, they are exactly the same except in their spiritual/magical power. If Morgoth had to be overcome on a spiritual plain then the same is true for Maia. I'm not saying that it is only the spiritual plain that matters, but that in order for one opponent to defeat another then their spirits must be at least on an equal level at the time of the battle. This is why Gandalf tells Aragorn and Boromir that the Balrog is a foe beyond either of them and that swords are of no more use. Men lack the connection to the spiritual/magical world and therefore stand no chance against a foe like a Balrog. On the other hand they seem to do alright against Dragons. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

I just re-read the thread, this is a fun debate [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

For the most part I believe I've made my points on this topic. I have been watching it, and I wish you both luck (Thingol and Kuruharan) in hashing it out.

However, a few minor things, mostly unrelated to the topic heading:

Are we taking this possible origin of the Dragons' spirits for granted now? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] As I said, I believe Tolkien would have mentioned this significant point somewhere. The only Maiarin servants he mentions are the Balrogs and the Orc chieftains. In addition, since the Dragons' specialty was firebreathing, would it not make sense that they (as Maiar) would be fire spirits? Would they not then simply be Balrogs, regardless of their physical shape or attributes?

Galadriel would know. More than Voronwe, for sure.

I do agree with you here. I think that these "spiritual" battles would be happening simultaneously with the physical duel, and not as if there are two spiritual beings wrestling on a different plane or in a different dimension, but merely as a clash of wills. It's not Gandalf's superior muscles or fighting technique that allowed him to throw down Durin's Bane. His will had conquered the Balrog's, and only then could he physically defeat him. Saruman was defeated solely by Gandalf's more potent will. Their duel existed entirely on the spiritual level, and Saruman's sundered staff was the physical, somewhat symbolic evidence of the outcome of that invisible battle.

Out of curiosity, do you think the Balrog could have defeated Gandalf with his fighting prowess alone?

I just want to clearly illustrate my points in an outline form. What can I say, I'm a freak. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

1. Man's spiritual/magical power is very weak, not on par with an elf's, let alone a Maia.
2. Men have killed Dragons.
3. In order for a "powerful" being to be defeated it must be confronted by an opponent of at least equal spiritual/magical power.
4. Balrogs are only slain by elf lords, who died in the process, and the Valar, it is very doubtful that a man could kill a Balrog (see Gandalf's quote to Aragorn and Boromir)
5. Since men have killed Dragons this means that the spiritual/magical power of a Dragon is not very potent.
6. Dragons are the most powerful beings in existance in terms of pure physical power, but I do not believe that Balrogs can be physically destroyed unless they are met by an opponent with equal or greater spiritual/magical power.
7. Voronwe's quote and Legolas' quote do not conflict with eachother. If one insists they do, then Voronwe's quote must be disregarded. The Lord of the Rings is cannon over the Unfinished Tales. Any ideas or statements in the Unfinished Tales that conflicts with information in the Lord of the Rings is either an out-dated notion or a slip up.

That pretty much sums up my argument, do your worst [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

This is a false distinction, Thingol.

As this definition shows, a creature can be either in flesh or not. Therefore, All beings, whether Valar or Children of Iluvatar, are creatures. Note that "servant" is even contained within the definition of "creature".

Despite the fact that spirit and body cannot be teased out from each other, Thingol, I agree that a strong spirit (or will), like that of a Balrog, can only be defeated by a spirit or will of comparable strength. But the strength of the weapon of the opponent should be accounted for, as well. Turin with his Black Sword, for example.

What I was really saying with "teased out" was a caution against talking about the physical and spiritual as if they were two separate battles. I agree that the spirit is in general more important than the flesh, but not exclusively so.

There is another important factor that I don't think has been brought into this discussion, and it needs to be because of Thingol's first two points about the weakness of Men. Iluvatar created the Valar and Eldar to be governed by fate, whereas Men have freedom to change fate, this making them more like Melkor than any of the other Valar in the eyes of the Eldar.

This ability to act free of fate is part of what is going on with Bilbo (who must be accounted as part of humanity) and Bard, slayer of Smaug. Bilbo was called 'lucky', and Bard's slaying of Smaug was also 'lucky'. This basically makes it impossible to compare men to the Eldar or Valar in terms of strength of spirit, because luck cannot be factored into the calculation with any success.

Here's my opinion on the Balrog versus Dragon debate after having read all of this thread so far: Balrogs were Melkor's Maiar and they made their own shapes. Dragons were the shapes that Melkor made for other Maiar who were not as strong as Balrogs. The Balrogs were created by Iluvatar to shape their own forms; the Dragons shapes were created by Melkor, a lesser being than Iluvatar, so the Dragons themselves must be lesser than Balrogs. It's my guess that the Maiar that inhabit Dragons are made more powerful by having been given those powerful forms. But that's only a guess.

Creature: Something created...

The only problem is the Balrogs were not created by Melkor, and in Voronwe's statement he says of Glaurung, he is the most fell of all the creatures of Morgoth. Morgoth did not create the Balrogs; they could be considered creatures of Illuvitar under your interpretation, but not the most fell of Melkor's creatures. Therefore, thanks to your definition, Balrogs can not be classified under creatures. On the other hand Melkor did have a part in breeding the Dragon's, so they could be refered to as his creatures. Legolas' statement, that save Sauron the Balrogs are the greatest of the elf banes is more general, and can include both Balrogs and Dragons. I did check and every one of the few times a Maia (of any Vala) is described, it is always as a servant. Creature might be a more general term, but there is still a distinction, at least in Tolkien's works, between servant and creature. I think Obloquy's comparison of pig vs farmhand applies nicely. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

Also littlemanpoet, it is not certain, even if it is likely, that the spirit that inhabits a Dragon is a Maia, it is only one possibility.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

I will clarify.

Balrogs were originally Maia, creatures of Iluvatar. That is, they were created by Iluvatar. Melkor was a creature of Iluvatar, created by him. Melkor and the Balrogs were of a single nature: Valar. They incarnated themselves, taking from the nature of Arda to clothe themselves in materiality.

The Dragons, by contrast, were of two natures. There are two possibilities: 1) Iluvatar created great serpents and created Maia, and Melkor corrupted them to evil and joined the Maia into the animal serpents. 2) Melkor made Dragons by turning normal serpents into Great serpents, investing them with Maia.

If the spirits of Melkor in Dragons were not Maia, what else could they be? They could not have been mere serpents to which Melkor added intelligence, because 1) that's not what Tolkien says; 2) Melkor was incapable of creating a new thing; all he could do was corrupt what Iluvatar or the other Valar had made. And for that reason I favor #1 above.

If by this I show agreement with the farmer/pig analogy, as limited as it is, so be it.

Glaurung is a creature of Morgoth, which means Morgoth created him. And invested him with a "spirit of Morgoth". This is probably a servant-spirit of Morgoth, that is, a corrupted Maia. If this is still insufficient proof that Dragons' spirits are Maia, then there is still a preponderance of hte evidence.

The spritis that inhabit Dragons could be corrupted elven spirits or even Dwarven spirits (We are never directly told where Dwarven spirits go). The spirits that inhabited the werewolves were probably corrupted elf spirits. If an elf Fea rejects the summons of Mandos, then it is doomed to wander the Earth. Many Avari elves rejected the summons of Mandos (being unfamiliar with the Valar) and were ensnared by Melkor/Sauron. The Barrow Wights were also probably corrupted elven spirits that were forced into the bodies of dead men by the Witchking. Also Balrogs and Melkor were of a single nature, but not Valar, they were both Ainur. The Balrogs are creatures of Illuvitar, but Servants of Morgoth. The Dragons on the other hand were bred, probably in the same manner in which Carchoth was bred, by Melkor and hence can be considered his creatures.

I don't mean to be anal, but their "single nature" was Ainur, not Valar. The Valar (Melkor) were the higher beings among the Ainur, and the Maiar (Balrogs) were the servants of them.

You seem to consider the Maiarin spirit as a necessity. It is not.

The seeming sentience of the Dragons could have been the original spirit of the beast that Morgoth corrupted, after having been taught to speak. Here is a quote that supports this as a possibility: Myths Transformed

Granted, this essay was in regard to Orc origins, but it applies. It supports the idea that, in devising Dragons, Morgoth corrupted a serpent or reptile of some kind, and taught it to speak or to express his hatred and malice. It would also be capable of rebellion.

There's also the possibility that Dragons are the offspring of Balrogs and serpents. I mentioned this early on in the discussion. The result of such a union would not be more Maiar (cf. Melian + Thingol = Luthien), but rather a strain of perverted beasts with a measure of Maiarin blood, or possibly even sentience. This entire scenario could be the "corruption" that Morgoth imposed on the serpent in the above paragraph.

I was just about to post that exact same quote Obloquy [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Dang! That'll teach me to be away from the boards for a whole day! [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

I'm afraid my horrible schedule is coming back to bite me in the butt again so, all sophistry aside, I'm going to say what I really think about the whole thing, and skip my little spiel about how just because two characters in the story say something that contradicts with another character that doesn't mean that one text should be favored over another. As Tolkien himself said there is a difference between characters in the story and his knowledge as subcreator. (Although I know there will be argument over that too...)

Balrogs are definitely Maiar.
Dragons are possibly Maiar, possibly not, but in any case are of a lower order than Balrogs.
I am still not convinced that Balrogs would have such an overwhealming spiritual advantage over Dragons, some yes, but not overwhealming.
Dragons are better at fighing than Balrogs, but are more easily destroyed.

In all honesty, I think that the best thing that can be said is that's probably too close to call.

And, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
[img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]


I do kinda like that theory about Dragons being the offspring of Balrogs and giant serpents though. Well, like as in appreciate it's merit not like as in..., well you know what I mean. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

Since, Dragons do seem to possess a higher order of intelligence and power than any spirit of any beast, I think that I would have been a bit more than mearly a perverted beast.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

Okay, being of somewhat limited intelligence and attention span (and I'm not taking notes), I've lost track of what Kuruharan and Obloquy assert, whereas Thingol has laid his out pretty cleaerly (which I don't consider weird, just organized - I won't even tell you what I was doing before you beat me to it - it WAs weird [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] ) All that to say this: Balrogs are Tolkien's invention, plain and simple. Dragons are not. Do you think that Tolkien's dragons are actually different in nature than those found in received Indo-European tradition? A lot of the debate and research on this thread into his works seem to indicate this sentiment. I personally think that he accepted this tradition and may have found it necessary (maybe not) to devise a mechanism (techno-speech - yuck [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ) for dragons' nature within Middle Earth. But I don't think so. Maybe we're finding angels on the ends of needles with this, eh? Yes, it's still great fun. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Because I do think he accepted this tradition, I think ALL his dragons are worth discussing: Glaurung, Smaug, EVEN Chrysophylax.

And yes, we have got to think up some thread about Farmer Giles of Ham. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] But what? [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

Mussst...get...thread...on...to...the...third...pa ge...ha-ha, ha, ha, ha, hee, hee...

Actually, I sort of did a little summary right above you, although for the most part I have been more dogmatic about it.

What happened to that whole Ainur vs. Elves thing, since Elves killed Balrogs. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Essentially the core of my thing is that I don't think that the "spiritual" power of the Dragons is so easily discarded as some here apparently think.

I contend that the elves who slayed Balrogs did defeat them on a spiritual level, their spirit was boosted because of the hopelessness of the situation and their closeness to death. Tolkien considered Glorfindel's act as one of the greatest deeds of all the children of Illuvitar. This indicates to me that for the most part the Balrogs were far too great an oponent for the elves, (This is one of the major reasons why Obloquy asserts that more than 7 Balrogs would be unreasonable; any more than 7 would unbalance the scale of power between the Noldor and Morgoth) and that elves of the caliber of Glorfindel and Ecthillion were very rare and powerful. I'm sure that the same could be said of Feanor, Fingon, and Fingolofin because they seemed to be doing allright in their battle against a single Balrog. And of coarse Fingolofin did a number on Morgoth himself, so I'd assume he could probably hold his own against a Balorg. Hehe, close to 3 pages. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

The problem, Kuruharan, is that we don't know what kind of spiritual power Dragons possess. Since Balrogs were originally among the highest order of beings, it is hard to accept speculation that a Dragon is more powerful. Tolkien was very specific about the origin of Morgoth's Umaiar servants, and yet he never mentions Dragons among them.

All right, I'll try again by quoting myself.

This makes a difference as to the nature of the spirits of Dragons: if Tolkien based his Dragons on a tradition, we may research that tradition and write about it on this thread and get it to a 3rd page! bwahahahahaha [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

But seriously, I think the tradition is worth studying in this context.

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

I never said that Dragons would have greater spiritual power than Balrogs. In fact I have said that Balrogs would probably have had greater spiritual power than Dragons.

However, I have said that I do not think that the spiritual power of a Balrog would be so overwhealming as to be decisive in a fight with a Dragon.

On a related note (sort of) to what obloquy and littlemanpoet were talking about, the nature of the power of Dragons seemed to be geared towards deception, ensnaring, and trickery. For instance, Glaurung ensnared Turin with his gaze and tricked him into doing some rather silly things (like passing up an Elven wench [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ). Smaug was attempting to trick Bilbo into revealing himself and the whole plot.

littlemanpoet:
If you would care to get the ball rolling on that subject, I'd be happy to oblige. I'm not entirely sure what direction you would like to go, but I think that the dragon that had the most influence on his writing was the one in Beowulf, although dragons in Germanic, and Norse mythology in general would probably also qualify.

WOAH!!!!!!!!!!i wud soooooooo go and see that fight! b4 the film, i think idve thoight the dragons wud win, but now ive seen the film i think balrogs definitly hav a chance, cos i never imagined them 2 b so big!

Yes, the Beowulf dragon is one. Another is Fafnir of the Nibelunglied. Another - and this one may be too great - is the wyrm (I forget its name) that encompasses the entirety of Midgaard in Norse mythology. Now THAT one could probably handle a Balrog - 10 of 'em. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I'll dig in and see what I can find....