The Balrog vs The Witch King

Originally Posted by Raynor

We have no evidence that the balrog relied on the blade to take care of Gandalf.
The ring for example, as you mentioned. Also, the fellowship would have been quite happy to just get away safely, regardless how many times they were provoked. They have little if any incentive in starting a fight.

The Balrog must show his power though some means, & it seems his chief weapon was his blade. A flaming sword, in biblical terms, symbolises supernatural power. Look it up on wikipedia.

Also, we have no evidence that the Balrog was after the Ring. He could have just been angry at being awaken, plus he would have been aware (eventually) that Gandalf also was a Maiar & therefore one of the few foes who could potentially defeat him.

Whatever opinion one has, the Balrog can be seen as a truly great opponent with all the hallmarks of a demonic god-like creature of ancient legend which even heroes of modern times dare not name. The Balrog effectively made the LOTR what it is today.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Mansun

it seems his chief weapon was his blade

Their chief weapon is fear.

A flaming sword, in biblical terms, symbolises supernatural power.

Though it may symbolise that, I don't see why it is the case here. Why do you keep insisting on this, if you have no evidence?

Look it up on wikipedia.

We are not discussing the bible and its symbols or wikipedia.

Also, we have no evidence that the Balrog was after the Ring. He could have just been angry at being awaken, plus he would have been aware (eventually) that Gandalf also was a Maiar & therefore one of the few foes who could potentially defeat him.

Indeed, we have no evidence at all of whatsoever, regarding the blade or his motivations. Therefore, no valid argument can be made.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

To think some idiots actually spend lots of time typing this crap & expecting everyone to give them a pat on the back for well done . . . get a life, & an education.

You mean beyond the three advanced degrees I already possess?

Pull out the cork, sonny. This thread has degenerated into RPG silliness and deserved a good lampooning, Mr. Most-intellectual-threads.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

You mean beyond the three advanced degrees I already possess?

Pull out the cork, sonny. This thread has degenerated into RPG silliness and deserved a good lampooning, Mr. Most-intellectual-threads.

That sir was a fantastic comeback!

Nonetheless, lets keep it civil chaps, let us not forget it is a work of fiction we debate here, not the economical state of Great Britain.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Sauron could 'pour' his power into things, he did so with the One Ring. However, Sauron was not like Morgoth who just 'squandered' his power into everything, to control/corrupt everything, and in doing so weakening himself.

Sorry to respond so late to this, Boromir. I disagree. I think that Sauron's ability to craft something that is infused with a large portion of his power might not demonstrate that he has the ability to dole out his power in portions to whomever he pleases. Remember that The One Ring's capacity as a reservoir for Sauron's power came at a price: if the Ring was destroyed, Sauron was also ruined. This suggests a much tighter--and indeed a reliant--relationship between Sauron and his Ring than he would have allowed between himself and a more or less expendable servant, unless that servant was invincible to the same degree that the Ring was. Also, Sauron created The One Ring at a time when he was still evidently discarnate, which makes the situation wholly different. A more plausible scenario, I believe, would be an allocation of more ring-power (was this an active well which Sauron could draw upon, reallocate, and augment?) to the Witch-King's ring, provided Sauron was willing to let the Witch-King wear it.

(You are correct about Sauron being more conservative than Morgoth, who squandered his power. If Sauron was capable of doing this and it involves the same "process" as the Ring's infusion, we must assume that when the Witch-King was slain, Sauron himself was damaged to a certain degree. There's nothing that I am aware of that precludes this possibility, but it is certainly an example of that Morgothian power squandering. Morgoth is the only one I am aware of who is said to put his own power into another being.)

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

Was Ecthelion on par with Gothmog, the servant of Morgoth and son of Morgoth? No.

He may have been, yes. He was not the same type of being, but the gap in potency between the lesser Maiar (the Balrogs are described as such) and the greater Eldar was very narrow--the tiers may even overlap.

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

Tolkien has surprised us enough with apparently "weaker" foes rising to the challenge so to speak. So to say that the Witch King is inadequate because he must be 'atleast in equal power' and he 'must therefore be deemed a weaker opponant', is in my view a little narrow minded (not personally i'm sure).

I see this claim a lot, but I'm unaware of the references. Maybe you could share which scenarios you're talking about.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

This suggests a much tighter--and indeed reliant--relationship between Sauron and his Ring than he would have allowed between himself and a more or less expendable servant, unless that servant was invincible to the same degree that the Ring was.

We have reasons to believe they are, to a good degree:

Originally Posted by The ring goes south

- You cannot destroy Ringwraiths like that, said Gandalf. The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him.

Also, Sauron created The One Ring at a time when he was still evidently discarnate, which makes the situation wholly different.

Sauron discarnate in 1600 S.A.? Why?

A more plausible scenario, I believe, would be an allocation of more ring-power (was this an active well which Sauron could draw upon, reallocate, and augment?) to the Witch-King's ring, provided Sauron was willing to let the Witch-King wear it.

An interesting thought. Then again, Gandalf mentions that Sauron keeps the nine rings, so this wouldn't be a problem (as you mentioned in a later post, I noticed).

the lesser Maiar (the Balrogs are described as such)

Where are they described as such?

Glorfindel in particular, though not the greatest of the Eldar, is said to be on par with the Maiar.

True, but his case is highly particular, since he is a reincarnated elf who was allowed to return to M.E.

Certainly this holds true also for Cirdan, Luthien, Galadriel, Ecthelion, Gil-galad, Elrond, Feanor, Fingolfin, Thingol, and others.

Why?

it stands to reason that the power received from the nine rings is primarily that irrational fear that all the Ulairi share

Hm, I hold my doubts towards this idea. The nine rigns were forged by the elves. Other than subservience to Sauron, I know of no other trait that would allow the ring to infuse the bearer with such power. Therefore, this power must come from Sauron also.

Why didn't the other Nazgul receive it as well? All the Nazgul received this weapon of supernatural fear, so if the Witch-King acquired his other powers from Sauron, why didn't the others? It makes more sense, lacking any textual indication that Sauron singled out the Witch-King for an extra helping of bad, that the ways in which the Witch-King is superior to the other eight are his own personal skillset, and that the ways in which he is like the other eight (wraith, "weaponized" fear, aversion to water) are what was received from Sauron and the nine rings.

This isn't the only explanation possible. I believe that the need to have a hierarchy would require simple leadership skills on his behalf. Further from that, Sauron can give him whatever he thought was necessary for his role.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

We have reasons to believe they are, to a good degree:

The Nazgul stand or fall with Sauron, naturally. But Sauron does not stand or fall with them, so this relationship is not equivalent to Sauron's relationship with the Ring. Come on, you shouldn't have needed me to explain that to you.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Sauron discarnate in 1600 S.A.? Why?

He was still capable of modifying his appearance until the drowning of Numenor.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Where are they described as such?

Find it yourself.

Originally Posted by Raynor

True, but his case is highly particular, since he is a reincarnated elf who was allowed to return to M.E.

And yet he was still not called one of the greatest Eldar. Are you suggesting that after his reincarnation and return he had surpassed all others? (That's a rhetorical question.)

Originally Posted by Raynor

Why?

Because they're all greater than Glorfindel.

Why am I answering these questions? Crack a book.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by obloquy

He may have been, yes. He was not the same type of being, but the gap in potency between the lesser Maiar (the Balrogs are described as such) and the greater Eldar was very narrow--the tiers may even overlap.



I see this claim a lot, but I'm unaware of the references. Maybe you could share which scenarios you're talking about.

The point i was making is similar to yours obloquy. Just because the character is of different status or what have you, doesn't make that character confined to achieve only what is deemed possible from an outward perspective. Ecthelion was not as powerful as Gothmog, i see no indication to support the possibility that he was - being that Gothmog was a particularly powerful and potent force within Melkor's ranks, and his alledged son for that matter. Ecthelion was a lord of Gondolin and of the Noldor, not royalty or of the elite echelon, yet he was revered.

We know the lesser Maija and the High Elves have a power not totally unlike the other, we have seen evidence that High Elves can endure physical conflict with the Maija - and it was physical conflict. The emphasis of 'power' in various writings of the encounters between Elf and Maija or Valar is minimal, it takes rather a more hardy standpoint on the physical prowess of those concerned.

A common example of the "seemingly" weaker foe is Glorfindel. You may argue that his status as one of the Elite Eldar gives reason enough for him to triumph over a balrog, a demigod. Who can say they saw it coming that Glorfindel on the impression they had already gained of him would win? I know i thought he was a terrific character, but defeating a Balrog in a 1 Vs1, i may have doubted.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

You mean beyond the three advanced degrees I already possess?

Pull out the cork, sonny. This thread has degenerated into RPG silliness and deserved a good lampooning, Mr. Most-intellectual-threads.

What counts is how you apply the education, not to mention where the degrees actually came from & what grades you acheived .

Originally Posted by Raynor

Their chief weapon is fear.

Though it may symbolise that, I don't see why it is the case here. Why do you keep insisting on this, if you have no evidence?

We are not discussing the bible and its symbols or wikipedia.

Indeed, we have no evidence at all of whatsoever, regarding the blade or his motivations. Therefore, no valid argument can be made.

Raynor, you insist to disagree with everything unless it is laid it writing by Tolkein plain & clear. If he were to do that, the LOTR would be the most boring book of all time. The link between biblical history & the LOTR is clearly made by Tolkein in many of his writings. Wikipedia has also been regarded by many as being more accurate than any encyclopedia.

I would suggest you try to look at some literacy anaylsis books to see how symbolic objects are meant to be interpreted in literature.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The link between biblical history & the LOTR is clearly made by Tolkein in many of his writings.

Such as.....?

The Witch-king's motivations are pretty explicitly laid out in the complex of papers associated with The Hunt for the Ring.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Such as.....?

The Witch-king's motivations are pretty explicitly laid out in the complex of papers associated with The Hunt for the Ring.

I suggest you look to another thread I started sometime ago in the Books forum called The Lord of the Bible?. This thread has many excellent examples.

If the Witch King was already enhanced, & Sauron did reclaim the Ring, would this make the Witch King more mightier than Gandalf the White & the Balrog? A major problem lies when we look back at the Witch King in the second age when he was at his most powerful level (as was Sauron) with the Ruling Ring in his Master's hand. Even in this form he failed to make any serious impact, e.g. in the Last Alliance battle.

It is plausible to say then that this added demonic force nonsense was a mistake by Tolkein, as it implies to the reader that the Witch King has had a bit of a continuous fluctuation in his power, depending on whether Sauron had the Ring, & indeed without the Ring. Just when exactly do you think he peaked in his power? It would surely have been when Sauron had the Ring?

Gandalf the White vs The Witch King (with Ring)

Gandalf the White vs The Witch King (without Ring)

Gandalf the White vs The Witch King (enhanced)

Who will answer this problem? It appears Tolkein had made a mistake here. The Witch King can only be in his greatest form when Sauron himself is at his greatest. Yet, in the volume III Sauron is at his weakest form, yet he can enhance the Witch King close to Gandalf the White's power?? This cannot be. Also, when the Witch King is killed, it would also imply that Sauron has just squandered the added demonic force he gave away lightly, to the point he may have less power himself as a result. Perhaps in this state even Gandalf the White could defeat him?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Mansun

A major problem lies when we look back at the Witch King in the second age when he was at his most powerful level

From what point of view was he at the most powerful level and according to whom?

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by Mansun

A major problem lies when we look back at the Witch King in the second age when he was at his most powerful level (as was Sauron) with the Ruling Ring in his Master's hand. Even in this form he failed to make any serious impact, e.g. in the Last Alliance battle.

This would presumably be true if there was a one to one relationship between the present power of Sauron and the Witch King. But it would seem that the power of the WK, beyond what he developed earlier as a mortal man, depends greatly on how much is given to him by Sauron. In the Second Age, Sauron himself appeared to take on Elendil and Gilgalad, so apparently the WK was not his only proxy able to go into battle. In contrast, I would say the WK was at his greatest power in the 3rd age, where he served as King of Angmar, destroying the North Kingdom altogether, and then later as commander of the armies attacking Minas Tirith. Of course, we should not discount completely his defeat of Earnur in the 3rd Age.

I would say that if Sauron did recover the One Ring, then he might have increased the power of the Witch King commensurately, but whether he would have felt the need to do so is another question. My reading of the WK's role in the 2nd Age is that Sauron did not feel the need to do so then...

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Raynor, you insist to disagree with everything unless it is laid it writing by Tolkein plain & clear. If he were to do that, the LOTR would be the most boring book of all time. The link between biblical history & the LOTR is clearly made by Tolkein in many of his writings. Wikipedia has also been regarded by many as being more accurate than any encyclopedia.

I would suggest you try to look at some literacy anaylsis books to see how symbolic objects are meant to be interpreted in literature.

Interesting that you criticize Raynor for not adhering to Tolkien (let's forget about the fact that you discount his inferences, while promoting your own with little to support them other than speculation), with the following statements just below

It is plausible to say then that this added demonic force nonsense was a mistake by Tolkein, as it implies to the reader that the Witch King has had a bit of a continuous fluctuation in his power, depending on whether Sauron had the Ring, & indeed without the Ring.

where you seem to discount what Tolkien actually said quite clearly in his letters.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Look it up on wikipedia.

Not the most reliable site on which to base your argument

Originally Posted by Mansun

Can the enhanced Witch King match such a foe? It appears not, since he would need to be at least in equal power to Sauron, Saruman, Gandalf & the Balrog of Morgoth to be so. This ends the debate once & for all - Gandalf, Balrogs, Saurman, Sauron are all essentially closely matched, that we know. The Witch King, however powerful a sorcerer, cannot fall into this supernatural category & must therefore be deemed a weaker opponent. The Witch King cannot kill a Maiar without being of equal power at least.

This brings us back to the old predicament of Glorfindel and the Balrog, of Ecthelion and Gothmog and of Fingolfin and Melkor.

Was Ecthelion on par with Gothmog, the servant of Morgoth and son of Morgoth? No, he was just a powerful Elf with particularly good fighting capabilities - doubtless he had this "power" but i would argue against it being equal to the Maija's.

Tolkien has surprised us enough with apparently "weaker" foes rising to the challenge so to speak. So to say that the Witch King is inadequate because he must be 'atleast in equal power' and he 'must therefore be deemed a weaker opponant', is in my view a little narrow minded (not personally i'm sure). Glorfindel, Ecthelion and Fingolfin each used a form of weapon to inflict damage on their foe. To say that the Balrogs were not as before, not of Maija or whatever is diverted by Fingolfins battle with Melkor, where he succeeds in frightening him and issuing him with a nice scar.

The Witch King, whom i am sure would fail to a Balrog (personally) cannot be counted out. We do not know how it would have gone, we can only bear educated guesses. After analyzing Tolkiens history of upsets it would be folly to just disregard someone because of their status in the world.