I think the battle would have to come down to a matter of circumstance. We all agree that the balrogs were great beings of power in which the spirits of Ainu resided. however the personage of a dragon is not as clear and could be one of many things.
1. A Maia who was incarnated into a hroa of Melkor's making.
2. A Maia who bred with some kind of reptile and was subsequently strengthened with Morgoth's power
3. A reptile possibly a dinosaur who was twisted, and whose fea was fed, strengthened and grown by Melkor's power
4. A mecanical device built by Morgoth in which the fea of a child of Illuvatar was imprisoned
The victor would depend on the battle cicumstance:
Balrog vs. 1. I believe it would come down to the one whose power, strengh of will, intelligence and tenacity of spirit was stronger.
Balrogs 1, Dragons 1
Balrog vs. 2. I would say the same thing as in #1 I mean Luthien was half breed elf/maia and look what she did to Morgoth. Feanor and Fingolfin wern't even half and look what they did, consider a balrog is substantially weaker than Morgoth
Balrogs 2, Dragons 2
Balrogs vs. 3. I would have to say no question this would go to the Balrogs although they might have a tad bit of trouble if the balrog was unusually weak and the dragon had an overdose of power. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
Balrogs 3, Dragons 2
Balrogs vs. 4. Do I really have to say anything here? [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]
Balrogs 4, Dragons 2
Add that to my personal vote towards Balrogs and we have:
Balrogs 5, Dragons 2 GAME SET AND MATCH BALROGS WIN!!!!!!!!!!
That's my opinion. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: Feanor... ]

Alright!! Fourth page!!! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Most battles do. And don't forget the ever important pure dumb luck, like whose going to step on a loose stone and fall flat on their face.

Well, sure if you're going to have the poor dragons outnumbered by over 2:1...

And when were you elected judge anyway? [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

This debate is starting to get so long it's hard to keep track of where everyone stands. If it's not too much to ask can everyone who is participating restate which side they're on. Thanx [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Balrog. Maiar, created by Eru, who can enflesh themselves. Dragons, by contrast, may have spirits that are Maiar, may not. They were created by Melkor, and are imprisoned in one form.

You may think of balrogs being weaker than dragons. But think of Smaug. One arrow and he was down. Not much of a fight, aye?
At the same time, we have a balrog in Moria, who it takes another Maia to kill.
And Smaug may have conquered Erebor on his own, but the balrog took out Moria, the greatest of the dwarven kingdoms.
I say that my vote has to go for the balrogs.

again...

We do not know what would have happened if Legolas had been able to get ahold of himself and shoot the Balrog. Smaug was all distracted and enjoying himself town-baiting when Bard shot him. If Smaug had been paying attention to Bard, he would have ended up one crispy critter, rather than king of Dale. Legolas had a similar opportunity to shoot the Balrog when he was paying attention to Gandalf. Who knows? The Balrog might have had a convienent hole in its armor (or hide) and that would have solved the problem.

Anyway, recap...
Balrogs-maiar
Dragons-maiar
Similar spirits, different tools, would have depended on the circumstances, who was fighting, no clear cut advantage to the Balrogs.

To quote Thingol...

Balrogs were bound to their forms as well.
And as we discussed (at length) earlier Melkor also put his power into his Balrogs as well as the Dragons.

Alright. I forgot about that permanence of body thing.

Balrog: demon of fire.
Dragon: breather of fire.

Balrog's fire can burn a dragon's hide (I suppose) and its wip can cut dragon hide, can certainly blind dragon.

Dragon's fire cannot harm a fire demon, may even add to its strength.

Advantage: Balrog.

If a Balrog had a body, then the same thing would be true of a Dragon's body. Meaning that it could be damaged by fire.

I'd just like to point out that we actually have no reason whatsoever to believe that Dragons were incarnate Maiar. I proposed it early on as a possibility that couldn't be ignored, but there is really no textual evidence at all to support it.

I think a lot of people have lost sight of the only reason the 'Dragons > Balrogs' camp got past the first round of debate, which was the text presented by Kuruharan on page one. Without that little citation (which I thought I had successfully argued away), I doubt this discussion would've reached two pages.

A lot of the thread's newcomers would benefit from reading the first three (lengthy) pages.

Ahh, obloquy, how are you? It's been awhile. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

And there is no reason whatsoever to believe that they did not. In fact, as I have pointed out (a few times) there are some good hints in the text that suggest that they did. The references to various dragons spirits, and the "putting of [their] power" against someone (in reference to the power in their eyes).

There is actually an interesting parallel to that last power, to trick and bemuse, in the Voice of Saruman. There is no doubt that Saruman was Maiar in origin. He was able to use his voice to cloud the minds of his listeners. Dragons were able to accomplish a similar feat through their eyes. While not proof, this is another instance that is suggestive.

Hiya Kuruharan. =)

Tolkien was very clear about other incarnate Maiar. He didn't just hint at it. We know that Dragons didn't make their own hroar, which means that if their fear were Maiarin, their incarnation would've been a unique case: Morgoth was never spoken of as having created empty bodies to be possessed by corrupted Maiar spirits. Though this doesn't rule out the possibility, I think that if it had happened this way, it would be uncharacteristic of JRRT to leave it unexplained.

I don't agree with this line of reasoning. Unless there is some textual indication that they were Maiar there's simply no solid argument. You can make comparisons and draw parallels all you want, but in the end that's all you'll have. Granted, it's a very real possibility, but no more likely than Goldberry being Yavanna.

In the Sil.. It was said that glaruang had a spirit of pure evil. Would this mean that he was a Mair? [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

No.

Not necessarily. He did not clearly explain the origins or the natures of Ents and Eagles (the big talking variety).

It's no less solid than assuming that they did not based upon lack of direct textual evidence. While they are not explicit statements comparisons and parallels from the text are evidence.

And it is much more likely than Goldberry being Yavanna. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Dragons are explicitly spoken of in the text as having spirits in them. If they weren't Maiar then what were they?

And before you say elves, let me remind you that very few elves could do the things that dragons could do, the beclouding of minds and ensnaring of wills for instance. Most of the elves who did seem to possess such power are accounted for: Feanor, Finrod, and Galadriel are the only ones I can remember off the top of my head. I have a hard time believing that there were that many renegade elvish souls that powerful that Morgoth could stuff into Dragons.

The Ents are the 'kelvar' spoken of in Of Aule and Yavanna, in the '77.

As for the Eagles:
Myths Transformed

as well as the following conflicting bit from the same chapter:

You've seen these passages before, I'm sure. No, it doesn't provide a concrete answer regarding Eagles, but Tolkien at least addressed the issue. He didn't even bother with Dragons.

I'm not assuming Dragons were not Maiar. I am only saying that there is no reason to believe they were. The possibility is just as speculative as that of Goldberry being Yavanna. We can draw parallels, and we can say "there's nothing to refute the theory", but that doesn't make it any more likely that it was Tolkien's conception.

Why?

Could you point me to this so that I don't have to hunt it down?

It's possible they were beasts that were taught to speak, cf. the MT quote above. They could also have been the progeny of a Balrog/beast union. They could be puppets of Morgoth's maleficent will. Perhaps they were nothing more than the original spirit of whatever beast Morgoth started with when devising Dragons after having been infused with a healthy portion of Morgoth's own power, and 'raised to a higher level', again per the MT quote. And then, of course, they might be Maiar. None of these have any more textual support than the others, though, so comparing them to Balrogs is really next to impossible.

I have offered a couple of arguments against the Maiar theory, though. Why were they not included in the lists of Morgoth's Maiarin servants? If they were Maiar, would their apparently fiery spirits not qualify them as Balrogs, regardless of the bodies they inhabit?

In addition, when Dragons died, they were dead -- no surviving spirit. This is because they were incarnate, rather than 'clothed', and thus bound in life and death to their hroar. But this begs the question, Why would these Maiar have been incarnated, when they could just as easily have only inhabited the Dragon shell and then been able to survive its death?

Here's another theory for you: Say Glaurung, the Father of the Dragons, was a Maia. We know he did a lot of breeding for Morgoth. This would eventually have incarnated him, making his subsequent death permanent. His offspring, though not full Maiar, would've been mighty beings, and probably sentient. Well? More conjecture to add to an issue that will have to remain uncertain.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ]

Yes, but what were they?

The evidence for Goldberry being Yavanna is very sketchy (and rather far fetched in my opinion). There is no explicit statement regarding her true nature.
Dragons are at least explicitly spoken of in the text as having spirits in them.

I do not believe that the spirit of any mere beast (assuming that beasts have spirits) would be capable of the actions of the dragons that are described to us.

But didn't we just establish that Balrogs were also bound to their bodies?

So do these later dragons only have part of a spirit, or how does that work if the bodies of new dragons were not inhabited by Maiar spirits?

I have actually changed my mind about the meaning of the 'kelvar' and 'olvar'. I think these words probably just mean the same as 'fauna' and 'flora', respectively. Now I say that the Ents are just another of Tolkien's mysteries. Much like Dragons.

Of course it's sketchy. So is the 'evidence' of Dragons being Maiar.

Dragons are only spoken of as being devised or bred by Melkor. How is that any more revealing than what we know of Goldberry?

Are you saying you doubt whether Goldberry has a fea?

This is interesting. The way this reads implies that the speaker was not Glaurung, but the spirit within Glaurung. What is Glaurung and why is there a distinction between him and his spirit? Seems like a passage that one might use in defense of the Morgoth-the-puppeteer theory.

Of course not. They didn't just come out of the wild with these abilities. Morgoth tinkered with them.

Yeah, so?

They have a hybrid spirit, like Luthien. Luthien was neither Maia nor fully Elf. These later Dragons would be Maia-enhanced beasts. The theory is similar to one possible explanation of Orc origins.

When you say 'bodies inhabited by Maiar spirits', you're describing what we refer to as 'clothed' Maiar. Dragons must necessarily be incarnate Maiar (if Maiar at all), because they did not survive the death of their hroar. This is why the above quote (Glaurung speaking by the spirit within him) doesn't quite fit with the Maiarin origin theory. The passage is written as if Glaurung is merely a vessel. It would certainly be possible for a Maia to pilot a Dragon-ship, but when the body was slain, the spirit would not go with it.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ]

It is at least a statement regarding their origins and maker. We have none of that for Goldberry other than a fanciful statement about her being a river's daughter, which may or may not be literal. We know where Dragons came from if not what they were made from or what type of soul they had.

That was not what I meant by that statement at all. That statement was referring to Dragons as having a spirit of some type.

When it comes down to it, it does not explicitly say that Goldberry had a fea, so, following your usual line of reasoning, perhaps she did not.

So they would perhaps be bound in life and death to their body.

A hybrid with what? It is also said (I believe) that beasts do not have souls. So, what would the Maiar spirit be mingled with? If there was no soul to mix with, then the spirit would of necessity be pure Maiar.

(Oh, and with the Orc thing, you're drawing a parallel more tenuous than any I have made. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img])

Where does it say that on some level they do not? And for the sake of making a comparison, where does it say that Balrogs do?

It could be the phraseology that Tolkien used for the sake of variation. In the passage with Nienor Glaurung is also referred to as, "putting out his power against her," as if he actually possessed it himself.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

Well, the Balrogs do survive the death of their hroa, the Fea of any being cannot be destroyed by anyone except Iluvatar. If the dragons are merely beasts then they would not survive the destruction of their hroa, but as has been stated we are not certain what the dragons were. I find it difficult to accept that Iluvatar would provide a fea for all of the dragon children. I find it equally difficult to believe that Melkor had enough Maia at his disposal to invest all of the dragons with Maia (I’ve always imagined there to be around 80 dragons, I don’t know why, just feels right). So in conclusion, even though the Balrogs were permanently bound to their bodies their fea could not be destroyed; the fea were doomed to wander the Earth in a weakened state, unable to take shape again. What I believe Obloquy was trying to point out is that there is ample evidence (although, like your evidence, his evidence is also merely drawing parallels; in his case between orcs and dragons) to support several theories on the type of beings dragons were. I offer a compromise that perhaps the original dragons contained maia spirits, but not the rest of their brood. Like the orcs, the majority of dragons would only be semi sentient.

Eru created Goldberry. It doesn't need to be explicitly stated because there's no implication that she was any kind of exception. Eru would not have created Dragons, however, so as exceptions their origin is explained. Still, there is no indication as to what type of being Goldberry was, and likewise for Dragons. I maintain that 'Goldberry = Yavanna' and 'Dragons = Maiar' are comparable issues.

We can assume she did. She was in 'humanoid' form, and capable of reason and vocalization. There is a big difference between attributing a fea to Goldberry and assigning an unattested origin to the Dragons' spirits. Surely you can see that.

Right, Balrog deaths appear to be final. I never said they weren't. (Except in the theory I proposed to explain the Battle of the Powers/'3 or 7' note.)

You're right, beasts do not have fear. Consider this, however: The only way Maiar can procreate is by adopting a physical form: two discarnate spirits cannot beget offspring. This means that all offspring of Maiar would necessarily be incarnate, since they would have to be born from a physical mother. They could therefore not be Maiar, as Maiar are in origin incorporeal. Though that does not mean they could not potentially be as powerful as a true Maia, or born with supernatural abilities.

We won't go into it here, but I assure you it is not that far-fetched.

On some level they would have (as Maiar).

MT

They didn't completely cease to be, but they were incapable of causing any more trouble. We have to assume that the deaths of both Balrogs and Dragons rendered their fea completely impotent, otherwise they would have simply taken new forms. Nobody seems to fear the possibility that Gothmog, Glorfindel's Bane, Durin's Bane, Glaurung, or Ancalagon will show up again.

By no means am I saying you should change your mind -- I happen to have filled in many of Tolkien's gaps with my own theories -- I just don't think it's fair to represent this particular theory as the most probable.

What makes me hesitant about this is the lack of textual evidence. We know that Tolkien explored the possibilities of there being different classes of orcs because there are writings about them. No such materials exist for Dragons. The only classes that are mentioned of Dragons are the land bound fireless kind, the land bound fire breathers, and the winged fire breathers. (I'm sorry that I don't have the technical terms, my books are still partially unavailable.) There is no mention of 'spiritual' differences between them.

It would probably be easiest to believe that the land bound cold drakes were the closest to beasts, being only semi-sentient. However, if anyone had a Maiar spirit Glaurung was the one, but he was land bound and not the greatest dragon. But there were Dragons that came later that were also possessed of great cunning and power (Ancalagon the Black and Smaug).
Would it be possible for corrupt Maiar spirits to be just hanging around waiting for a Dragon of sufficient physical might to be spawned so they could inhabit the body?

Tsk, tsk, where does it say that? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Dragons were also capable of reason and vocalization. And Goldberry's origins are most definitely unattested.

Perhaps it was not so much a matter of giving as Eru allowing a process that he created to carry through as designed, even though it would be creating great monsters of evil, because "greater glory could come through it." All the heroical slayings and so forth that make such good stories.

I had actually not been looking at the second part in quite the same way. I was looking at it from the point of view of that if something is not mixed then it is the same substance as it's...uh parent (for lack of a better word; although I guess that was what it was).

I think that we may finally have found something to reach a concensus on! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

We're in agreement here, for the most part.

This is what I was referring to when I said I found it telling that Tolkien left this matter unexplained. Not that Tolkien rarely left mysteries, but that such a significantly different and unique origin be unaddressed. There is no precedent for this theory, as Morgoth is not said to have created bodies for other spirits and then incarnated them into these forms. This point of incarnation happens to be very significant because it appears to be involuntary and undesirable. It seems to always have been a side-effect of the Maia's extensive interaction with the physical plane, with the possible exception of the Istari--of whom we know rather little. Do you see what I'm trying to say? This intentional marriage of a soul to a pre-made body is an entirely unattested concept, unless I'm quite mistaken. (I believe we must consider the reincarnation of Elves a different matter since Elves are incarnate in nature, whereas Maiar are naturally incorporeal.) Again, that's not to say it's impossible. There is just too much we don't know about the metaphysics of Tolkien's cosmos. And this applies equally to the apparent incarnation of Balrogs: we don't know how they became that way.

It's a fairly reasonable and logical assumption. You're playing games with me now.

And I'm not necessarily claiming Dragons had no fea.

But I believe my reasoning stands. All offspring of Maiar must be incarnate, and thus cannot be called Maiar themselves. Whether the spirit within is undiluted or not, Maiar are in origin ealar, not incarnates.

I suppose I have been taking this point for granted when mentioning the 'permanent' deaths of incarnate Maiar.

I think if I type 'incarnate' one more time I'll probably eat my hand off.

To clarify, my standpoint on the issue is "hell if I know."

Touché! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

But then what would they be?

I don't think that this means that the spirit would be any weaker, since there was no dilution.

This thread has gotten so long and rambly (to say nothing of convoluted and technical) I wonder if even the admins have gotten bored and are no longer bothering to read it. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Not that I'm bored, this is fun! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

A hybrid of some sort, like I said. The point is that they are beings who can't 'exist' (in the way that true ealar exist) in a disembodied state.

Maybe not. I already conceded this point in an earlier post:

But breeding with beasts may be more of a 'negative' than just a 'zero', if you catch my meaning. I don't expect you to accept that as a point of argument, though. It's just one more possible explanation regarding something we know very little of.

I know Sharku doesn't bother reading my Balrog babble. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I think I must still be unclear on something. First of all, I assume that by "exist" you mean on a level that is tangible to mere mortals and such.

Second, after the point in time when Balrogs lost their ability to change their forms, or became permanently incarnate, did that change their status. After all, they were no longer able to exist in a disembodied state.

I think I understand better what you are saying.

Kind of like (and this is just an example) a change from one state of matter to another. Steam is water, but if it condenses it's still water, but it is no longer steam. (A rather imperfect comparison, but is that sort of what you are saying?)

Tee-hee... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

No, not necessarily 'tangible'. I mean they 'exist' in that they are capable of affecting the physical world in some way. When this incarnate fea is separated from its hroa (most likely this will only happen when it 'dies'), its spirit will be rendered impotent. A Maia, on the other hand, is a being whose nature it is to exist in an incorporeal state. Though the Maia, after dying as an incarnate, would also be a powerless spirit (as we must assume was the case with the Balrogs and Dragons, as well as Saruman, Sauron, and Melkor, per Myths Transformed), its nature as created was eala. The difference lies in that the hybrid's original nature was physical: the being never existed and could never exist in a discarnate state. In other words, since a Maia is partly defined as an eala, a being that cannot exist in that form simply cannot be Maia.

No. Tolkien still referred to Balrogs, Sauron, and the Istari as Maiar. Besides, it's an issue of the created (or born) nature of the spirit, not its state of being at any given time.

hmm, somewhat. It can probably be most simply put in mathematical terms. Where it's possible that the scenario could be represented this way: 1 + 0 = 1; I think it should probably be considered this way: 1 + (-1) = 0. Though the resultant being would not likely 'be a zero'. Anyway, I think that should clear up my thinking on that particular question.

We seem to be winding down. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: obloquy ]

As in, for instance, the Valar being able to do much in the world even though those who saw them thought they were just sitting there.

Alas, yes! I think that we've hashed this topic out about as much as such a murky matter can be hashed.

As a matter of fact, we've hashed a few things more than once. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Although, who knows. Maybe in another couple of months somebody will come along and light a fire under this ole' thread again...

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

Had to double edit my post. How embarassing. [img]smilies/redface.gif[/img]

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

When I have to edit a second time, I always edit out the first "This message was edited" bit.

I normally do to, but I had to do something silly to tie all the loose ends together. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Like I said before at the begining of this page the whole battle would come down to circumstance. In the first few the match is indefinite and from what I've seen of this debate it's useless to try arguing the technicalities of these because it can go either way and will end up going endlessly in a string of circular reasoning. However in the latter of the matches the circumstances for dragons slope towards the negative side while the balrogs stay constant. Therefore giving the balrogs the advantage, the way this debate continues to be argued concentrates continually on only one of the many different circumstances the battle could be played out on. In arguing somthing like this you need to constantly keep in mind the Big Picture(to borrow the cliche). However when the tally is taken the Big Pictue inevitably favors the Balrog's side (again due to circumstance). So even without my personal vote Balrogs would still emerge victorious after all's said and done. And like I've said before it's useless to argue over the technicallities because this battle is determined by the circumstances of the different battles all fitting together in the big picture. Because Balrogs are in a default position and the dragons are not dragons can only be at most equal with the balrogs and gradually more and more weak in every other circumstance.

I hope I haven't sounded the death knell for this thread because it's been really fun to participate in. But if I have, like Kuruharan said [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Welcome to the Barrow-Downs, Feanor.

Ok, I'm coming to this a little late, but here goes.
First of all, I don't think that the dragons are infused/indwelled/inhabited/whatever by Maiar. The ones that I've read about seem to be more like (big and strong and fire-breathing, but ) humans. Actually, I know some people who act like dragons (meaning Smaug and Glaurung), at least in personality. Dragons, in Tolkien anyway, are greedy, arrogant, and generally all-around .
On Balrogs, well, they just seem to exist for one purpose. Destruction. Of Elves, of dwarves, of men, of anything. They are more like demons than dragons are.
Also, I do agree with someone-or-other (sorry that I can't remember your name) that the dragons are very smart (and ) animal sort of things. Balrogs are more like just plain demons. They are "Maiar in a purer form." (though I still don't think dragons are Maiar at all)

And where do you find this demonic archetype which balrogs fit and dragons don't? Although I believe dragons were not Ainur, I don't see the distinction you're making, or any base whatsoever for your contention.

Note to Maltaharma: I think that a Balrog with pink eyes would be pretty funny!(Not that I`d like to meet one)
(sigh) I`d have to vote for the Balrogs though I liked dragons more...
[img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Tuor killed multiple Balrogs in Gondolin, and he didn't die.

Well, I investigated the Encyclopedia of Tolkien at that`s what it said:

Hey, great work! You've found an unsubstantiated -- and thus completely useless -- quote.

You are totally unprepared for this discussion.

BALROGS ALL THE WAY!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! I know Dragons are more powerful but i just think BAlrogs are cooler.

Well well. I don't think saying "All who killed a balrod died" means that balrogs are much stronger. What else did the balrogs do than sit in Angband, unless it was a battle? Túrin was only able to kill Glaurung because Glaurung didn't think that anyone would come and stab his stomach. Could even the mightiest of elven lords have slain him in a duel? No way.

The Balrogs existed for only one purpose - to destroy. Dragons liked a little fun, they put a dragon spell on their victims. The Balrogs simply slaughtered their opponents. The Dragons' weak spot was indeed this, they always underestimated their opponents and played when it was time to kill.

Many have said, that killing a Balrog needs great power of will, and therefore a man can't kill a Balrog. Well, a dragon sure has enough power of will to do that. And imagine it, a hundred feet long, enormous dragon against a Balrog, who is maybe twice the stature of an elf. Even if the fire the dragon breathes is useless(which I don't think it is, not completely at least), he still has his claws and tail. The Balrog can't break the dragon's armour. His belly is his weak spot? Smaug didn't have a weak spot in his belly, there was only that one hole. All dragon's didn't have that, I think. Balrog's attack fails --> he is smashed by the dragon's tail. Groaar, he's dead.

My vote for the dragons.

Actually there is a quote from The Book of Lost Tales II: Turambar and the Foalókë
The Tale of Turambar and the Foalóke was written circa 1917, before the Tale of Tinuviel. If we couple that with the fact that Tolkien drastically reduced the number of Total Balrogs in existence from Hundreds in the The Fall of Gondolin to at it's most only seven, so as to make them stronger and deadlier if you will.
It appears that Balrogs are indeed more powerful than Dragons.
On the other hand, it could be said that, at that time, Winged dragons didn't exist and you could make the argument that the quote doesn't apply to them.