Do Balrogs Have Wings?

[skip spence]

Couldn't resist replying on this thread...

As some others already stated: no where in any writings of Tolkien is there any description of Balrogs with wings... I guess this misconception comes from in the mention of wings in Moria. But those of you who believe they are actual wings as opposed to a wing-shaped shadow must have poor English reading skills indeed or you haven't read the books at all.

Don't remember the exact words in the bridge of khazad dum passage now but wasn't is something like "it's wings spread from wall to wall..."?

Now correct my if I'm wrong, but wasn't this episode in one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) halls of Moria. If they were actual physical wings this would imply the Balrog was immensly tall. This huge size would also imply that:

The balrogs sword and whip would have been redundant as it would have been able to crush Gandalf like a bug.

The wings would also have been made redundant as it would have been able to step over the gorge as if it were a pothole.

Now as you all know the balrog walked (!) out on the bridge (which was just wide enough to pass one man at a time) where Gandalf fought it and cast it down in the abyss by raising the bridge.

All this would have been impossible if the Balrog was gigantic, let alone had wings.

Now there's absolutely nothing in this passage that implies that the Balrog had wings. Sure you could argue that it had wing but was flightless you could also argue that it had a leather jacket. If I said Balrogs wore leather jackets you would call me crazy though.

[HerenIstarion]

It's been so long I forgot my own position back at the time... lucky it gives one their own choice in italics, so I must have been of the no-winger party if this software is to be trusted...

But, skip spence, surely you don't imply that whatever walked out at Gandalf and Co was nothing more than an undersized excuse for a balrog that only grew in the telling over the ages the tale has been told? Why should we diminish its stature in order to get rid of its wings (if any)?

[obloquy]

I don't think there's any written evidence that balrogs were--or Durin's Bane was particularly--gigantic. Greater than a man in size, for sure, and capable of flaring their silhouette to demoralizing effect, but not so large as to be unable (obviously) to make their way through the less spectacular doorways and hallways of Moria. Greater than Sauron in physical form? It seems unlikely. After a certain point, size becomes impractical for an intelligent creature, especially if we assume that, as Maiar, balrogs were probably accustomed to more comfortable dwellings than holes in mountains such as dragons made use of (note: Moria was not just a hole in a mountain).

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I don't think there's any written evidence that balrogs were--or Durin's Bane was particularly--gigantic. Greater than a man in size, for sure, and capable of flaring their silhouette to demoralizing effect, but not so large as to be unable (obviously) to make their way through the less spectacular doorways and hallways of Moria. Greater than Sauron in physical form? It seems unlikely. After a certain point, size becomes impractical for an intelligent creature, especially if we assume that, as Maiar, balrogs were probably accustomed to more comfortable dwellings than holes in mountains such as dragons made use of (note: Moria was not just a hole in a mountain).

Hello, old man :J

I didn't say Balrogs were 'gigantic', did I? Was just interested in train of thought behind the conclusion

In fact, it must have been of moderate size (scene of Ganlalf holding the door being an evidence), just it seemed somewhat strange to mee that people would need to rely on abstract reasoning and law of physics and the such when textual evidence is there to make use of, few pages back from the bridge scene

`As I stood there I could hear orc-voices on the other side: at any moment I thought they would burst it open. I could not hear what was said; they seemed to be talking in their own hideous language. All I caught was ghâsh; that is "fire". Then something came into the chamber – I felt it through the door, and the orcs themselves were afraid and fell silent. It laid hold of the iron ring, and then it perceived me and my spell.
'What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge. The counter-spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control and began to open! I had to speak a word of Command. That proved too great a strain. The door burst in pieces. Something dark as a cloud was blocking out all the light inside, and I was thrown backwards down the stairs. All the wall gave way, and the roof of the chamber as well, I think

Italics mine

Indeed, something capabale of 'laying hold of the iron ring' designed by dwarves and for dwarves' use, could not have been more than a few times larger than a dwarf, let alone problem of squeezing into the hall in the first place. Note also that the door is shattered not by a physical force that would have been a natural choice for a creature that large rather than 'words of command' and 'counter spells' (to be quite truthul, the door is, in the end, shattered by physical force of the 'roof of the chamber' falling down, but I'm talking cause here)

Anyway, even if I seem to be repeating Skip's argument's to an extent (though with greater eloquence I dare to believe), it was his somewhat harsh ranking of all pro-wingers to a man under 'poor English skills' file that made me want to tease him a bit.

[obloquy]

ehe.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

But, skip spence, surely you don't imply that whatever walked out at Gandalf and Co was nothing more than an undersized excuse for a balrog that only grew in the telling over the ages the tale has been told?

That's a very creative interpretation of my post (the first on this forum I believe) and how you came to it I can't guess. Perhaps my writing isn't eloquent enough to comprehend?

The physical appearance of a Balrog is never directly described, nor is its size. Tolkien probably wanted to allow the reader to make a mental image of the creature far scarier than what he'd be able to conjure up. If you imagine the Balrog with wings there's nothing wrong with that. Nor is it right.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Why should we diminish its stature in order to get rid of its wings (if any)?

I'm not trying to diminish it's size. Where have I said anything like that? And if you really can't follow my train of thought, you too must have rather poor English reading skills. Seriously.

[Nerwen]

Actually, it depends on the sex of the Balrog. As with fireflies, only males have wings. (See Letter #144, and "Morgoth's Ring" p. 70.)

Mind you, I'm not sure if this is strictly canonical. At the time Tolkien was playing with the idea that Morgoth had bred the Balrogs from a species of insect, a concept that he later abandoned.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by skip spence

That's a very creative interpretation of my post

Mea culpa, confiteor. Maybe I tend to see depths below surfaces where none have been intended. Still

I'm not trying to diminish it's size. Where have I said anything like that?

Few posts up . Consider:

If they were actual physical wings this would imply the Balrog was immensly tall

If my logic be correct, this statement in itself implies its reverse that would be, roughly, as follows: 'if they were not actual physical wings, this would imply the Balrog was diminutively short'

Of course, I may have been taking it a bit too far, but your own post did not contain an indicator as to what definition opposed to immensely tall would you have stopped at yourself, so the scale of immensely tall - diminutively short is open to be used according to my liking.

And if you really can't follow my train of thought, you too must have rather poor English reading skills. Seriously.

That may well be the case. Yet, within this sentence you claim that your position reflects the truth (or is closer to the truth) not because it is based on fact, but because your perception ability is of superior quality. Huh?

As I've mentioned earlier, I believe [mark the verb used] Balrogs were not winged. Still, your uncompromising (to say the least) manner, merciful Sir (M'am?) forces me to argue with you over an issue we, apparently, agree upon

-----------------------------------------------

Nerwen, you must have the wrong letter there, at least all letter 144 says about Balrogs is as follows:

The Balrog is a survivor from the Silmarillion and the legends of the First Age. So is Shelob. The Balrogs, of whom the whips were the chief weapons, were primeval spirits of destroying fire, chief servants of the primeval Dark Power of the First Age. They were supposed to have been all destroyed in the overthrow of Thangorodrim, his fortress in the North. But it is here found (there is usually a hang-over especially of evil from one age to another) that one had escaped and taken refuge under the mountains of Hithaeglin (the Misty Mountains). It is observable that only the Elf knows what the thing is – and doubtless Gandalf.

As far as I'm concernend, letters don't contain any further mention of Balrogs but one as follows:

The Balrog never speaks or makes any vocal sound at all. Above all he does not laugh or sneer. .... Z may think that he knows more about Balrogs than I do

Letter 210

Can't remember male/female wings/fireflies concept either, would be glad to be directed

[Nerwen]

Sorry, I meant Letter #134.

The firefly reference is from the second section of "Annals of Aman" (Morgoth's Ring):

And in Utumno he wrought from the creeping and flying insects of Yavanna the race of demons whom the Elves after named the Balrogs. And they were like unto fireflies, though much greater; those that were male among them had wings, but those that were female had not.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Sorry, I meant Letter #134.

I'm afraid not

134 From a letter to Rayner Unwin 29 August 1952

I am at last turning to my own affairs. The situation is this: I am anxious to publish The Lord of the Rings as soon as possible. I believe it to be a great (though not flawless) work. Let other things follow as they may. But as the expense of typing proved prohibitive, I had to do it all myself, and there is only one (more or less) fair copy in existence. I dare not consign that to the post, and in any case I am now going to devote some days to correcting it finally. For this purpose, I am retiring tomorrow from the noise and stench of Holywell to my son's cottage on Chiltern-top while he is away with his children.1.... I shall return on September 10th. After that I could call with my burden at Museum Street2 on some date convenient to you .... or, if that is not asking too much, you could call on me (as you so kindly suggest might be possible). ....
I have recently made some tape-recordings of pans of the Hobbit and The Lord (notably the Gollum-passages and some pieces of 'Elvish') and was much surprised to discover their effectiveness as recitations, and (if I may say so) my own effectiveness as a narrator, I do a very pretty Gollum and Treebeard. Could not the BBC be interested? The tape-reel is in the possession of George Sayer (English Master at Malvern) and I am sure he would forward it for your or anyone else's trial. It was unrehearsed and impromptu and could be improved.3
I should love to come to London, if only for the purpose of seeing you and meeting your wife. But I am cutting even the 'seventh International Congress of Linguists' (Sept 1), of which I am an official – time is so miserably short, and I am tired. I have on my plate not only the 'great works', but the overdue professional work I was finishing up at Cambridge (edition of the Ancrene Wisse); the W. P. Ker lecture at Glasgow; Sir Gawain; and new lectures! But your continued interest cheers me. I have a constant 'fan-mail' from all over the English-speaking world for 'more' – curiously enough often for 'more about the Necromancer', which the Lord certainly fulfils.

The firefly reference is from the second section of "Annals of Aman" (Morgoth's Ring

Thanks

Still can't seem able to locate it, will require a little bit of time I guess

[Nerwen]

Hang on, maybe I'm thinking of Letter #143.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

If my logic be correct, this statement in itself implies its reverse that would be, roughly, as follows: 'if they were not actual physical wings, this would imply the Balrog was diminutively short' Of course, I may have been taking it a bit too far, but your own post did not contain an indicator as to what definition opposed to immensely tall would you have stopped at yourself, so the scale of immensely tall - diminutively short is open to be used according to my liking.

Once again your deduction astounds me. Let me see if I understand your point of view: You're saying that since my statement the Balrog wasn't immensly tall is possible to interpret as the Balrog was diminutively short you have the freedom to do so? And also that you are forced to argue with me as my position in this current debate is too uncompromising?

You are indeed free to come up with wild interpretations of what I'm writing to make a forced argument but this isn't very constructive, nor does it make you look very clever. Do you know the opposite of clever? Use the same logic as before and see what comes up.