[obloquy]

If there were only 3 Balrogs then none would be left to be slain in the war of wrath.

So?!("interrobang", thanks réd [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]) The War of Wrath was just as dynamic as any other of his writings, why would this change be impossible? If he was intending to change the Balrog population as a whole, the War of Wrath account was not going to go unaffected regardless of the number he chose.

I do not see how you can assume that reducing the number of Balrogs to 7 was Tolkien's latest notion.

I am not assuming that it is Tolkien's latest notion, I am saying that it is Tolkien's latest notion in writing (which is really all we can go on, now isn't it?). And it is. We can put an approximate date on it by taking note of the fact that it was attached to the Annals of Aman, which therefore must have existed before its writing. There is no other text containing a reference to the number of Balrogs that dates more recent than AAm. It is Tolkien's latest written concept of the quantities of Balrogs.

For all you know the number 7 could just have been a passing notion to Tolkien. I do not doubt that he was thinking about reducing the number of Balrogs, perhaps drastically, but 7 is too extreme a reduction in my opinion.

It is an idea that makes perfect sense. It would have reconciled much inconsistency between some very obsolete Silmarillion material and the Lord of the Rings, and it should not be ignored.

What it comes down to is neither of us can prove anything one way or the other, your opinion is just as legitamite as mine.

My proof is in the writings that we have. All of the Silmarillion is incomplete. Even if the story is complete (like the Fall of Gondolin), it is "incomplete" since Tolkien never achieved the internal consistency that he desired, and it was never to an acceptable point of completion for him to publish it. This leads most of us to view the latest written ideas as the most valid. It is logical for us to adopt a newer concept and assume, based on that newer concept, that the earlier accounts would have been modified to fit with it. It is a mistake to assume that the note is inconsequential and that the author probably didn't mean anything by it.