High Elves and the Balrogs

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

You may believe that Glorfindel, in his enhancement, exceeded what was previously the upper limit of Eldarin power (Luthien, Feanor, Galadriel) but I do not, and can see no support for the idea.

I wouldn't equate Galadriel being capable of wielding the ring with her being more powerful than Glorfindel in battle. In letter #246, Tolkien talks even about Frodo possibly becoming capable of wielding the ring, should his will be given enough time

Frodo had become a considerable person, but of a special kind: in spiritual enlargement rather than in increase of physical or mental power; his will was much stronger than it had been, but so far it had been exercised in resisting not using the Ring and with the object of destroying it. He needed time, much time, before he could control the Ring or (which in such a case is the same) before it could control him; before his will and arrogance could grow to a stature in which he could dominate other major hostile wills.

However, even if it occurred, I doubt that Frodo (without his ring) would be more powerful than Glorfindel, in battle, since his will (which is implied to be the one ingredient necessary for controlling the ring) and the battle skills of a hobbit would simply not suffice to take down an Elf Lord (or a balrog, for that matter).

Originally Posted by obloquy

Great post, Boromir88. My reputation button is not functioning, so I have to just tell you here that I appreciate your contribution.

I got the same problem; instead of clicking the reputation button, I opened it in a new window (or tab) and I was able to rep.

[obloquy]

I wouldn't equate Galadriel being capable of wielding the ring with her being more powerful than Glorfindel in battle.

I wasn't talking about that, actually. I was referring to the text you quoted earlier in the thread from The Shibboleth of Feanor.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I wasn't talking about that, actually. I was referring to the text you quoted earlier in the thread from The Shibboleth of Feanor.

I see; sorry for the blunder. However, I have my doubts that being one of the greatest of the Noldor means she is more powerful in battle than Glorfindel; in my opinion, the title refers more to "political" role and achievements, rather than warrior abilities.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I see; sorry for the blunder. However, I have my doubts that being one of the greatest of the Noldor means she is more powerful in battle than Glorfindel; in my opinion, the title refers more to "political" role and achievements, rather than warrior abilities.

But what about the potent magicks that she has and performed? doesn't that count as "warrior" abillities? the phial, the scrying on sauron, the healing and shrouding fog over the Eorl's men, healing Gandalf, and repelling three waves of attacks... that doesn't count as "warrior" abilities? It seems to me that it is but of more grand scale than a one-on-one bout.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Gorthaur the Cruel

But what about the potent magicks that she has and performed? doesn't that count as "warrior" abillities? the phial, the scrying on sauron, the healing and shrouding fog over the Eorl's men, healing Gandalf, and repelling three waves of attacks... that doesn't count as "warrior" abilities? It seems to me that it is but of more grand scale than a one-on-one bout.

I don't deny that she has some cool tricks; however, that doesn't guarantee she can best Glorfindel in battle.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Gorthaur the Cruel

But what about the potent magicks that she has and performed? doesn't that count as "warrior" abillities? the phial, the scrying on sauron, the healing and shrouding fog over the Eorl's men, healing Gandalf, and repelling three waves of attacks... that doesn't count as "warrior" abilities? It seems to me that it is but of more grand scale than a one-on-one bout.

The last sentence was a good summary, however, i'm inclined to agree with Raynor on the point of her battle "abilities" - somebody made the statement earlier about her achievements being more "political", and that is the basis for the title "greatest". I think it has more to do with her perceptive abilities, strength of mind and will. To arrive at the conclusion that because she was dubbed "greatest" by Tolkien, she is a battle hardened war veteren of unmitigated power (exaggerated) i think is taking what Tolkien said and basing it on practically anything that can have a hierarchy. We have little evidence she could actually fight, and only a few scenarios whereby she is destructive through magic. For me, evidence is against her completely.

[obloquy]

Tolkien uses the same unqualified "greatest" to describe Galadriel as he does to describe Sauron (greatest of Melkor's servants). Please tell us why you refuse to allow Galadriel's greatness to include prowess in battle. It certainly isn't based on anything in the books. As I outlined in my "Sauron vs. Your Mama" thread, Middle-earth battles are more about spiritual stature than anything else. Maybe you can come up with an example of an exception to this rule, but I can't.

[Raynor]

At least on the general level, Galadriel, as an Elven woman, is rather guaranteed to deal some serious damage in battle:

Originally Posted by Aelfwine's Preamble, Later Quenta Silmarillion, HoME X

Indeed, in dire straits or desperate defence, the nissi fought valiantly, and there was less difference in strength and speed between elven-men and elven-women that had not borne child than is seen among mortals.

Edit:
And more specifically, I am reminded of her role in the battle of Alqualonde, as envisioned in the last version of the rebellion of the Noldor, set down in Tolkien's last month of his life:

Originally Posted by The History of Galadriel and Celeborn, Part IV of the Unfinished Tales

In Feanor's revolt that followed the Darkening of Valinor Galadriel had no part: indeeed she with Celeborn fought heroically in defence of Alqualonde against the assault of the Noldor, and Celeborn's ship was saved from them.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Tolkien uses the same unqualified "greatest" to describe Galadriel as he does to describe Sauron (greatest of Melkor's servants). Please tell us why you refuse to allow Galadriel's greatness to include prowess in battle. It certainly isn't based on anything in the books. As I outlined in my "Sauron vs. Your Mama" thread, Middle-earth battles are more about spiritual stature than anything else. Maybe you can come up with an example of an exception to this rule, but I can't.

I refuse to allow Galadriel's greatness to include prowess in battle simply because she fought maybe once or twice in the history of ME, by "fought" i refer to fighting - whether that includes a degree of spiritual works or sword, i mean a confrontational bout. She may have attacked Dol Guldur and broken its walls... with her power, and yet, has she ever claimed a significant life? not to my recollection. Celeborn led the host against Dol Guldur, whilst Galadriel stood atop a hill and fashioned some devilish hocus pocus.

What can magic do for you in a one on one bout? when there is a scant second between each parry? Not a great deal.

Ecthelion slew 3 Balrogs, and Gothmog (Maiar?) - It was achieved through his sword and helmet. Glorfindel slew a Balrog - He fought with a blade also. The Hammer of Wrath all bore weapons when they collectively slew several Balrogs. Fingolfin wounded the most powerful Valar with a blade. Infact, only Gandalf weaved magic into his combat (that with Durin's Bane) and he was Maiar. Conclusion - it doesn't take a spell to defeat a being of immense "power". It just takes a really skilled combatant.

So though magic may well be a prominent player in battle, in a one on one bout, it has little bearence, in my opinion. It is usually the case that those equipped with great power are also cunning fighters, which is why we associate that power with their battle prowess.

Unfortunately i don't have my books on tap at the moment, so i can't quote anything.

I think that the notion of "power" not being a key weapon in a duel is altogether plausible. So much evidence backs it up, and it is realistic. All of the greatest warriors bore a weapon, was it a means of channeling the "power"? i doubt it. Its just because they were great warriors, nothing more. Maybe with the lack of heroes during the third age, it is harder to determine the gravity of people in ages past. That is my level of thinking anyway, is it totally unbelievable?