Here's the result of my research. The primary Dragons and Serpents are:

1) Fafnir (not of the Nibelunglied, but the Volsunga saga - sorry, my mistake)
2) Beowulf's Dragon
3) Lemmenkainen's Serpent

1) Fafnir is without wings, and spits poison. He doesn't begin to speak until after Sigurd has dealt the death blow. But from thereon he proceeds to prophesy, warn, and curse Sigurd (for going after his hoard), revealing an uncanny intelligence and 'fea' of mythic proportion. To save space and prevent boredom for those not so keen on this, I refer you to the website: The Story of the Volsungs

2) Beowulf's Dragon does not speak, but it flies and vomits fire. It is ferocious. I have the book, so I didn't look up a website for this one.

3) Lemmenkainen's Serpent. For info on this one, see Rune XXVI. Origin of the Serpent I'll quote from it briefly so you can get a sense of its proportions: Its size is comparable to the other two. It has no wings and does not speak, and it spits poison. I would think Tolkien knew of this Serpent, though it's at odds in some ways with his mythos, especially in how it is defeated. Lemmenkainen does not slay it, but says the right words to make it go away. The right words are the naming of its origins. Would that such a thing worked to get rid of our own opponents, eh?
[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

There's probably more in the tradition, but I wanted to get back to this thread before too much time passed.

Anyway, I see similarity between Fafnir on one hand and Glaurung & Smaug on the other, especially Glaurung (both Turin and Sigurd are heroes who face tragic ends).

The sheer ferocity of Beowulf's Dragon sets it apart. It's the only fire-breathing Dragon I've found so far.

As to Balrogs versus Dragons, my initial sense upon doing this brief research is that:
1) there are levels of power among Dragons/Serpents. Intelligence that allows for speech may play a factor in this.
2) it's anybody's guess whether poison would be any more effective against Balrogs (spirits of fire) than firey breath.
3) Gandalf used words against the Balrog, not unlike Lemminkainen against the Serpent. But there was a physical battle between Gandalf and the Balrog, as has been said here already.

A lot more can be said, but I'll let it go at this for now.

Nice research, littlemanpoet. I definitely see a couple of similarities, but I don't think we can look at those original Dragons to fill in the gaps that Tolkien left in his. Tolkien's borrowed mythical beings differ drastically from their traditional folklore counterparts. Gnomes and Elves, for example. It is interesting to see the characters that were evidently Tolkien's models for his Dragons, but I would avoid transferring features from them to Tolkien's. Tolkien's mythology was entirely independent.

Because the mythical beings are borrowed, Obloquy, there are enough similarities. Your examples don't help your assertion regarding drastic differences because Gnomes don't exist in Tolkien's mythos (unless you refer to his old usage from BOLT, which he revised, rendering that usage un-canon) and Tolkien's Elves do indeed hearken back to an older tradition than the corrupted Victorian pixie-style elfs.

By independent, do you mean that it stands alone, or that it is entirely divorced or autonomous from any heritage, or something else? Obviously, it stands alone, but that's not saying much. Anyone with any literary discernment can tell that Tolkien's mythos is his and not something else. To say that it is entirely divorced or autonomous is to deny all the roots which Tolkien himself acknowledged, such as the Elder Edda, etc. Check out this fascinating website regarding Tolkien's sources. Sources of the Lord of the Rings. If by entirely independent you mean something else, please explain.

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

Tolkien merely changed what he called the Noldor because the meaning of "gnomes" had become confused. They're still Gnomes, according to what Tolkien originally intended by that name.

I mean that apart from borrowing certain features of traditional folklore and mythology, Middle-earth is unconnected to those traditions. In other words, there are dragons, but there is no Fafnir. I am not going to pretend that I know much about the cultural traditions that influenced Tolkien, but I do know that it would be silly to attribute any aspects of those traditions to Tolkien's cosmos just because they don't directly conflict. He didn't just expand on existing mythology, he used classical models to create his own.

I'm inclined to agree with Obloquy, for the most part Tolkien's works are independent from classical mythology. However, I just finished reading Beowulf, and the Dragon from the story bears striking familiarity to Smaug. For example the dragon is Beowulf is roused by a man who steals a jeweled cup from the dragon's hoard, just as Smaug is roused by Bilbo stealing a jeweled cup. The description of the dragon in Beowulf is also very similar to the description of Smaug. However, just because the Dragons that Tolkien borrowed are beings of incredible power and ferocity does not mean that this is proof that Dragons are more powerful than Balrogs. Tolkien certainly did not blindly copy the descriptions of Dragons from other works, he made many modifications to them. It is evident, at least to me, that Tolkien's Dragons are not on the same level as some of the Dragons described in Norse and especially Chineese mythology. In Tolkien's works the Dragons are more like beasts of pure physical power, and as I've said this does not necessarily give them an edge over the Balrogs. I do not know much about Norse mythology outside of Beowulf, so I really can't tell how closely Tolkien's mythos resembles already existing ones. I posted a thread in Books 2 discussing the originality of Tolkien's works, which is relevant to this discussion.

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

Miss me? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Good job on getting it to the third page. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Yes, that was where the idea for the stolen cup came from.

If you want a section in the book that is REALLY similar to Beowulf, read the section about Gandalf & co. arriving at Edoras, and his interactions with some of the people there.

Dragons probably made a convienient nasssty beasty for Tolkien to use in his works, that was also a familiar beast from other mythology. Since the idea was there, why not use it? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Yay 100!

As to 'silly', I'll let that one go. I am not asserting 'blind copying'. I do assert that Tolkien's dragons are based on those found in Germanic myth, particularly Fafnir and the Beowulf dragon. The evidence from the texts bears that out. I know of no others. I guess the question may be phrased thus:

"Is it safe to say that characteristics of dragons from Germanic, Finnish, and Celtic myth can be assumed to exist in Tolkien's dragons unless it is clear from Tolkien's mythos that they cannot fit?"

It is clear that Tolkien went beyond the two we know of in Glaurung, whose cunning went beyond Fafnir, and obviously beyond the Beowulf dragon.

I gotta run off to work. Back later.

That is the exact question I intended to be answering. I realize that Tolkien's mythology was modeled after "real" mythology, I just don't think the aspects of those models that are not specifically borrowed should be attributed to Tolkien's cosmos. You can't look to outside sources to find the truth of matters that are based within Tolkien's world.

Now that I've stated the question with sufficient clarity, I'm having a harder time answering "yes". I'm not ready to say "no". I do think, however, that Fafnir, the Beowulf Dragon, the Lemmenkainen serpent, and any others extant in ancient texts, are useful for enlightening our understanding of Tolkien's dragons, at least by virtue of comparison and contrast. Now I'm hungry to find more dragons.

Here we go a-dragon hunting,
dragon hunting,
dragon hunting,
here we go a-dragon hunting
so early in the morni- !!!

slurp

[img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

You'll have to forgive me, I'm not entirely up on my Teutonic legends, but weren't there some dragons in the Siegfried tales as well?
Or at least one dragon?

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

I thought so too, but when I scanned the lists and took a couple plunges I realized that the Siegfried and Sigurd legends get confused with each other, which is what I had done. Siegfried's is the Nibelungenlied, Sigurd's is the Volsung saga. Not that this answer is the end - all. I need to look into this more....

Another thing that I'll point out, just because...

Tolkien took several different ideas of dragons and incorporated them into Middle earth.
He had Dragons that were land bound and did not vomit fire (cold drakes), Dragons that did vomit fire, but were land bound (Glaurung), and Dragons that could vomit fire and fly (Smaug). Although Tolkien did not have any Dragons that spit poison, which might have been interesting.

Yes, I know this is cheap, but I had to do something to save the thread. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Hello,

Here is my interpratation of how a battle would go.....

Round 1:

Dragon glares at Balrog, Balrog glares back. Dragon sees Balrog is mightier at glaring and looks away. Dragon looks back and tries to make the Balrog have a mind blank. Succeeds. Round 1 to the Dragon. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Round 2:

Dragon and Balrog glare again. This time Dragon decides to attack. Breathes fire on Balrog. Has no effect. Balrog uses whip and scars Dragon. Dragon flies down and attacks Balrog with claws and teeth.. Burns himself. Balrog looms up scarily. Dragon surrenders. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Round 3:

Glaring begins again. Dragon breathes noxious fumes and flame. Has no effect. Hurls insults at Balrog. Balrog hurls the end of his whip. Dragon gets it on the end of his nose.Makes Balrog have mind blank.

So, a very close battle and probably a load of rubbish. I think we'll never know who would win unless we asked Tolkien himself.

This is probably true. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Okay, I really think it could be argued either way, of course if I had to choose I'd bet my bottom buck on the Balrog. I say that well the Balrogs were servants of the Morgoth, and so were the Dragons. Of course, Balrog Sauron rose to power and almost wiped out Middle Earth and I don't see any Glaurung doing that. Of course, we never see anyone carrying on an intelligent conversation with a Balrog (well, generally). But, well, yeah. Balrogs, man. Dragons rock, but I mean, Balrogs are a heck of a lot nastier and well...MORE EVIL.

Tsk! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

With all the talk of defeating enemies on a spiritual level, what of the mention of Tuor's slaying of 7 (number may be incorrect) balrogs at the Fall of Gondolin? New though I am, I see that the Fall of Gondolin is in dispute in terms of the validity of some of its passages, but I thought this still bore some consideration.
Are we to assume that Aragorn, a mortal of the highest order and strength of will, able to contest Sauron himself, (albeit concerning a palantir which was rightfully his own) would not be able to master the Balrog of Khazad-Dum on the spiritual plane?

The argument that Elves are noted as killing Balrogs whereas Men have only killed dragons, and thus dragons are easier to kill, is moot. Couldn't it be said in rebuttal that no Elves are noted as killing dragons (barring the peredhel mariner) so they must be stronger?

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Erandir ]

-Book of Lost Tales II, Chapter 2

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

Hail Thingol, son of whoknows(?), and well met! We meet again on this perpetual battlefield of Balrogs and Dragons!
I give thee joy to know that there is something that I would like to point out about that particular quote. It is from the Lost Tales and so it is not strictly canon. The power of Dragons tended to grow as Tolkien revised the work, a point shown in the discussion on Glorund's meeting with Nienor in Lost Tales II.

(Yes, yes, I know that the power of Balrogs also greatly grew, but I could not resist the opportunity to fire off a round, for old times sake.) [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

Which is more big? A bolrog or a dragon? I watched the movies and read the book. The one that strkies feer in me is a Balrog. Dragons, to me, remind me of dinosaurs. Balrogs, on the other hand, remind me of demons, or even of a Diablo. Anyway, yeah, just wondering!!

Tolkien's dragons were large, probably as big as medium sized dinosaurs. A Balrog, a flame demon, forms its own shape. It can vary its size, probably as small as man-size (why it would want to be that small would be beyond me) and as large, or larger, than a dragon.

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

AH-HA! One of my favorite hobby horses!

First of all I have a few questions. Do you mean that the Balrog would be bigger than the dragon is tall when the dragon is standing on all four feet, or do you mean that the Balrog is taller than a dragon is long?

Could you explain this comment a little bit more? I want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing. Do you mean that the Balrog shape-shifts or that size is different from Balrog to Balrog?

I read someplace (I'm sorry, I'm afraid that I have no idea where) that Smaug was over 80 feet long from snout to tail. I'm sure that's not canon, but I thought I'd say throw that out there just to give some idea of the lengths we may be talking about.

Balroge, definatly. If niether of them could use fire, what would you pick, a sword and a whip, or teeth and claws?Balrogs would whoop the dragons, no contest.
Also, aren't Balrogs former Maiar? Dragons are just beasts created by Morgoth the Enemy. Also, dragons get killed easily. As far as Tolkien told us, the only Balrogs that were killed was the one killed by Gandalf, and a couple in the earlier wars. Most the Maiar and Valar just sealed away somewhere.

So is it even POSSIBLE to come to a decision on this? Seems Tolkien loved both his dragons and his balrogs!

'Course, its fun to jsut discuss this endlessly!

Not one to jump in at the middle/end of a discussion, but I think littlemanpoet is refering to the maiarin origins of Balrogs and the ability for maiar to clothe themselves in any form. It would only make sense that their size could also very. That is if Balrogs could change form and were not bound to their bodies. Who is to say on that one?

I thought that might be it, but I wanted to make sure. That they could choose the size and so forth of their form, I'd agree with. I do not agree that they could shape-shift afterwards, or that they were the size of dragons.

Durelen had my thinking right. Of course, who's to say a Balrog couldn't grow itself to at least 80 feet tall? Have you seen Jon Howe's 'The Fall of Gondolin'? He depicts both Balrogs and Dragons. Not saying that his depiction is necessarily canon, but it's interesting. His Balrogs are the same size as his Dragons from shoulder to tail, I think, and then add the Dragons' tail and neck/head. But that's just one example of one artist's rendition.

"Whew!" what an exciting debate lets keep it moving! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Okay, with all due respect to John Howe (and no offense to his fans), he is a wonderful artist and more talented than I could ever possibly hope to be, but I think that his visual representations of Middle earth are almost all wrong. However, sticking to Balrogs specifically, there are several problems that I have with his version.
1. It has wings (but I'm not meaning to open that can o' worms right now.)
2. The Balrogs are entirely too tall. (More on this in a second)
3. He generally makes his Balrogs look like big dogs with bat wings and bull horns.

Back to the matter of size. I find it impossible to believe that Balrogs could be more than 15-20 feet in height.

First when the Balrog is described as towering over Gandalf, you have to remember that the Balrog is being described in relation to. A Maia whose form is that of an old man. You take a 15 foot Balrog and a 5'6" Gandalf, and the Balrog would seem to tower over Gandalf.

Second, the Balrog had existed in Khazad-dum for centuries. It could have lived entirely in the larger chambers (even though I find that a bit hard to swallow), but it is described as physically entering the Chamber of Mazarbul. That chamber was a smallish room, as was the tunnel and the door leading to the room. There is no way that a 50'-80' Balrog could have gotten through.

Third, if the Balrogs could be 80' tall, why did they not just stomp on their enemies and be done with it? That would have been so much simpler than having to battle these puny, pesky elves like Feanor and Fingon who were putting up such a nasty fight.

As for Balrogs changing shape, too much attention is paid to the sentence where the Balrog has the strength of a strangling snake. Just because they had crashed into deep water and the Balrog was still very strong does not mean that he had taken on the form of a snake. The Balrog had always been that strong, its just that the description sounded better now that they were in the water.
Plus, Morgoth and Sauron had both lost the power to shape-shift. I don't see a compelling reason to accept that the Balrogs still had a power that their masters lost.

And in conclusion, I would like to apologize for my lack of quoted material in the above post. My books are packed away in boxes and I can't get to them right now. I'm afraid that you'll have to wait a few more weeks for me to deluge you with my usual slurry of quotes. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I find myself drawn to this thread now for some reason or another. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

I do agree Kuruharan on Howe's renderings of Balrogs: they are spirits of fire and cloaked in shadow, not giant rottweiler's with bat wings. What we have here is a Tolkien creation, and in his land Men of old were in excess of 8' and an Elf like Thingol would probably have been over 9' since he was the tallest of all the Children of Ilùvatar. So I don't think a 20' Balrog is out of the picture.

Gandalf was not 5'6" but one of the tallest member of the fellowship, making him more than 6', taller than Boromir, taller than Legolas and possibly taller than Aragorn(I don't remember exactly how it is stated).

Continuing on with the Tolkien Cosmos. It is widely known that many beings(Gandalf, Aragorn, Tuor) often seemed to grow in stature. This along with any ability to actually grow, there could very well have been some small ability, a Balrog could go from a height of 20 feet to 30 feet. Anything larger and we begin to see some major problems.

[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: Durelen ]

I don't see how Morgoth's and Sauron's lack of ability to change shape and size causes a Balrog to lose the ability - especially since Morgoth and Sauron are known to have dissipated their power into other beings and artifices, whereas Balrogs are not known to have done so.

I don't see what the problem is with a Balrog changing its size at will, in order to get into the Chamber of Marzabul, then to tower over Gandalf. As far as stomping on its opponents by being big, I would expect a Balrog to expend only so much of its energy in "up-sizing" as it deemed necessary for the occasion. I don't think any of that's outside of Tolkien's mythos.

I guess I always pictured the Balrogs, from my first reading on, to be more like at least 30 feet tall....

I agree, I don't like the depiction of balrogs as hulking beasts. However I disagree w. Kuruharan's statement about balrogs losing the ability to change shape. Remember Balrogs were once Ainu and the ability to change shape was native to them in the begining and the only reason why Melkor and Sauron were no longer able to do so was because they suffered such grevious injuries to their person that they could not easily change their form with out much pain and effort. For example when Morgoth was attacked by Unguoilant he was very much injured as we see from what happened to the land of Lammoth. And Sauron's ability to take a fair shape was lost when he got caught in the downfall of Numenor. In each instance they went through massive injury. However there is no indication that the balrog endured the same type of ordeal. Besides the fack that he fled the War of Wrath but the very fact that he escaped is more strongly indicative that he was able to escape Manwe's fury, thus escaping injury.

Ah, well 5'6" was just the random number I happened to pick off the top of my head so you're undoubtedly right about that. Still, the difference between 6' and 20' is tremendous.

I don't think that the ability to have a controlled growth spurt of 10' would qualify as a small ability. I think that even a size change of 10' causes major problems. (Of course, I may be taking a too literal interpretation of your words there. If I am let me know.)

Allow me to clarify, I see that I phrased my thought about this incompletely and very badly. I did not mean to say that the Balrogs had lost any abilities because of anything that happened to Morgoth or Sauron. That statement was meant as more of a comparison. The reason why I think that the Balrogs lost the ability to change their forms is because they became, in a sense, trapped in their bodies. They spent so much time in their forms that they became unable to shed it and unable to greatly alter it. Granted, Sauron lost his ability to shape shift in the Downfall of Numenor, but was the fight with Ungoliant the reason why Morgoth lost his? I think that Morgoth's spirit became caged in his body because of his desire to be a visible tyrant on the earth. As powerful as the Balrogs were, Morgoth was a much greater being and if he gradually became ensnared in his form, I think it likely that the lesser Balrogs were similarly trapped.

One sentence that I see over and over again on this issue is the statement that the, "Balrog drew itself up to a great height." This sentence does not mean that the Balrog was able to change his size. Again, the situation needs to be remembered. They were in an ancient dwarven kingdom. The Balrog had been running through mazes of tunnels and rooms that were not really large enough for it. When it got to the First Hall and confronted Gandalf it was finally in a room tall enough for him to be able to stand up straight. Aside from getting relief for it's aching back, the 20' Balrog used this as a means of trying to instill fear in the heart of Gandalf.

My biggest problem with the shape shifting Balrogs is where to draw the line. If you take all the opportunities that the Balrog allegedly had to change forms then he would have altered his shape (counting the size adjustment to enter the Chamber of Mazarbul) four times. This was under stress and fighting through most of that time, and chasing after the Fellowship the time he was not fighting. That puts a rather large hole in the notion that it took a great deal of energy and time to rest before making alterations in the physical form. I just can't see that happening. I prefer to go with the simplest explaination rather than have to conjure up a bunch of different theories and ideas that are not supported in the text.
In this case the simplest explaination is that: the Balrogs were only 15'-25' tall (and I believe that 25' is REALLY pushing it), they could not change their forms aside from perhaps some very limited alterations in size, and they did not look like psychotic black labs with bull horns and bat wings.

And, yes I know that Sauron was able to change his form about four times in the grip of Huan, but Sauron was a greater spirit. That effort left even him completely exhausted and he could not fight. The Balrog was still in full flame on the mountain top and fighting like mad.

I have two comments, number one it never says that Sauron lost the ability to change his form, only that he could no longer assume a fair form. Also Tolkien specifically stated that the Balrogs became bound to their bodies permanently. This probably occurred after the Battle of Powers.

Good point! Perhaps the Professor meant that when he created new forms he could not create a fair one, but that he could not change the form that he created.

He did generate two forms after the Downfall. One when he got back to Mordor, and one at some point in Dol Guldur.

I would have to disagree with this statement. As you can see here the form Melkor had put on was the same as the one he had put on before and there was nothing to prevent him from taking it off again besides a vague "In that form he remained ever after". Refering back to the string about spiritual encounters Melkor's clash with the Ungouilant would definitely have been spiritual and considering the fact that she had just consumed the power of the Trees and Wells and gems of Fëanor the encounter was spiritually devastating for Melkor and he was wounded deeply, preventing him from changing form as easilly as before. As for Sauron his downfall was not as spiritually severe for in the downfall of Numenor the damage was mostly physical and he yet retained most of his native power the only spiritual damage done was due to the to the involvement of Illuvatar's power, yet that was not focused directly on Sauron but on the world and namely Valinor and Numenor; thus indirectly at Sauron, which is why he sustained less injury and retained more of his power.

That is interesting, Feanor, but what is your view upon dragons versus balrogs? If this discussion is to begin again, we need to know each other's opinions. Personally, the balrog is my favorite.

It does say someplace that Morgoth actually lost the power to change forms. I just can't remember where. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

In Morgoth's Ring there is an in depth discussion of the nature and subsequent dissipation of Melkor’s power. There are also quite a few threads on the boards devoted to the topic of Melkor’s power, just search Melkor or Morgoth. Kuruharan is correct, Melkor became chained to the tall, dark lord persona after his confrontation with Ungoliant. Melkor becomes much less powerful after he incarnates himself. This discussion is actually very relevant to the debate on the nature of the power of dragons and Balrogs. It goes to the heart of the effects of incarnating oneself into a single hröa. (body) Again in Morgoth's Ring "Myths Transformed", VIII, Orcs, JRRT discusses spirits who have becomes permanently incarnate as Orcs, until death of their body. Now I am aware that the Balrogs became trapped in a single hroa, just as the dragons were. However, from the description of the Balrog of Moria, and the fact that Tolkien states that “Most binding is begetting or conceiving” I believe that the dragons were much closer to the physical world than the Balrogs were. The original dragons were probably inhabited by Maia, but it is highly unlikely that all of their brood were as well. Even if some of the original dragons would have been a match for a Balrog (which I do not agree with) I doubt that your run of the mill dragon could put up much of a fight against a Balrog. And don't give me one of those: this comes from an earlier period and Tolkien changed his mind lines, [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] the quotes come from Myth's Transformed in Morgoth's Ring and are some of Tolkien's later writings.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

What's this? Somebody's trying to get us back to the point?

Just a thought, but why could not the later dragons have Maiar spirits. If they did not what sort of soul would they have? As you said, "would Eru provide fëar for such creatures? For the Eagles etc. perhaps. But not for Orcs." I think that you could say the same for dragons. They clearly had some sort of spirit inside them. Smaug was intelligent and filled with cunning and evil will far beyond the scope of a mere beast. For instance, he could talk. Corrupt Maiar spirits are the most logical choice as the source for such cunning and ability.