High Elves and the Balrogs

[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?