Bye Bye Balrogs - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Findegil · 12-09-2010, 09:39 AM

About Balrogs slain or not in the War of the Powers:

Quote:

But ultimately, even if one admits the possibility of a non-literal interpretation of the sentence, I don't think that's sufficient to allow us any more freedom than we've taken, since there remains still the possibility that it was meant literally.

That' right. But I am still interested in oppions from others for my own enlightment indepent of the project itself.

About the 'Demon' slian by Glorfindel: I remember vaguly that we discussed this before, did not find it when I worte the post. I will again search for our old discussion.

CE-EX-12.5: Aiwendil worte

Quote:

Let's not get ahead of ourselves - I don't think we've officially worked on that chapter yet!

Oops, your are right. This is part of one of my drafts and not of any chapter discussed here. Thus I could have changed it silently. And of course you are also right that my editing was defectiv.
I agree that to use the footnote means to change a statement by JRR Tolkien into
a statement of on of the scibes in our line of text tradition. This is unwonted and therefore I agree not to use the footnote.
Thus the passage reads:

Quote:

§50 {It}Thus it came to pass that at last the gates of Utumno were broken and its halls unroofed, and Melkor took refuge in the uttermost pit. Thence, seeing that all was lost (for that time), he sent forth on a sudden CE-EX-12.5 {a host of}<AAm; late scibbled changes his> Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained<AAm; late scibbled changes faithfull to him>, and they assailed the standard of Manwë, as it were a tide of flame. But they were withered in the wind of his wrath and slain with the lightning of his sword; and Melkor stood at last alone.

VE-13.045: Here I am sure that we alrady discussed it. So do you agree to my change?

Respectfully
Findegil

Khazad-dûm · 12-10-2010, 01:29 AM

Yeah sorry I didn't read all the earlier posts and I agree with that statement that it can't really be proven but I haven't really "studied" (lol) the books as much as a lot of people on the Downs have and that's just the opinion on the subject from someone(myself) who's only read LOTR once (almost twice I'm still working on it

lol). I just like to post my short opinions on here (I can't write essays on the subjects like I've noticed other do) because my girlfriend laughs at me when I talk to her about it.

Sorry for being way off topic you can ignore this.

Thanks for the greetings by the way!

Elemmakil · 01-07-2016, 01:40 AM

I read through this thread and found it very interesting. I thought I would contribute a few random thoughts:

1. I note in passing that there are, per the late margin note, "3 or 7" balrogs, and that there were 9 Nazgul (along with 3 Elven rings, 7 Dwarven rings, and 9 rings for Men). I don't know that it has any use or meaning, but Tolkien certainly seems to have liked odd numbers!

2. I never liked the thought of "1,000's" of Balrogs - such numbers cheapens them, and does make the idea of a "siege" of Angband laughable on its face - even the early versions of the stories make them somewhat powerful, and I find the notion hard to give credence to.

3. On the other hand, even 7, let alone a mere 3, Balrogs is to me an unsustainable idea. Why? Well, my concern has to do with the duel of Glorfindel and the Balrog. If there are only a tiny handful of Balrogs, does it really make logical sense that even one of these powerful beings would be committed to basically "night watch" duty away from the main battle? Would they not *all* be committed to storming the last stronghold of the Noldor? It would be like sending a fleet of destroyers and cruisers into the main fray, but having your Battleship hundreds of miles away on patrol looking for fleeing ships - that makes no sense at all. Now, if there were somewhat more balrogs (at least a dozen or preferably two or three dozen) then the idea of perhaps 2 to 4 being put in charge of the watchers in the surrounding hills becomes much more plausible.

Like I said, random thoughts.

Gothmog, LoB · 05-25-2016, 07:40 AM

In my it is pretty obvious that Manwe's dealings with the Balrogs in Utumno actually refer to a physical fight and their subsequent defeat.

Considering that this was the War of the Powers we can be reasonably sure that the Valar and Maiar (and Melkor's minions) did not exactly fight in a way they and the Eruhíni would fight Melkor's creatures later on. The War of Wrath most likely involved a lot of more physical weaponry and violence than the War of the Powers during which many (if not all) of the ealar involved would not yet have been permanently bound to their bodily forms.

In that sense, I see no problems with an unspecified number of Balrogs being 'slain' by Manwe himself at Utumno since that would only have bereft them of their bodily shapes. They wouldn't have died in any real sense.

In fact, we know from Note 5 of the Òsanwe-kenta that only one Vala (Melkor-Morgoth) ever became permanently incarnated. With the Maiar this tends to happen more quickly, but Melian is cited as the only example (although that causes problems if we try to imagine the details of her return into the West prior to the voyage of Eärendil). The Istari we certainly can cite as later examples for this (although their incarnation seems to have been 'special' in the sense that it might have been more binding from the beginning, unlike the slow process that made Melian and Sauron earthbound).

However, the note also includes an interesting revelation about Sauron and his confrontation with Lúthien during the Lay of Leithian. Unlike the old text JRRT seems to have changed his mind about Sauron not losing his body back then and there, stating that 'the first destruction of the bodily form of Sauron was recorded in the histories of the Elder Days, in the Lay of Leithian.'

This suggests that Sauron doesn't become a 'special case' using the One Ring as his anchor to the physical world. And Tolkien also specifies that this extends to Morgoth's mother minions, not just Sauron: 'So it was also with even some of his [Morgoth's] greatest servants, as in these later days we see: they became wedded to the forms of their evil deeds, and if these bodies were taken from them or destroyed, they were nullified, until they had rebuilt a semblance of their former habitations, with which they could continue the evil courses in which they had become fixed.'

A momentary 'nullification' due to the loss of one's hröa didn't necessitate a permanent end. One assumes that fallen Maiar/Úmaiar couldn't 'die' and restore their bodies indefinitely, but they could do so quite a few times.

In that sense I'd argue that there is little problem with the number of the Balrogs aside from the actual descriptions of certain battles.

But there should be an unspecified number of Balrogs throughout all the battles of the First Age, acting as Morgoth's generals and his most fearsome warriors. And there is also no need to mess with any of the details of the fights between Elves and Balrogs (Gothmog & Balrogs vs. Feanor; Gothmog & Balrog vs. Fingon; Gothmog vs. Ecthelion; Glorfindel vs. Balrogs).

It is part of the story that the Eldar in their youth were very powerful, or had the potential to become very powerful, and this explicitly confirmed for Feanor. The idea that this man could have fought of multiple Balrogs of the type the Fellowship faced in Moria isn't far-fetched at all. And with Fingolfin fighting against and physically wounding Morgoth himself there is also no reason to believe that Fingon, Ecthelion, and Glorfindel did what they did.

One could even imagine that some of the other Gondolindrim slew some Balrogs - they could all have made themselves new bodies for the War of Wrath. The Noldor of Gondolin were the cream of the Eldar warriors in Middle-earth, and we know there was later much and long fighting between the Maiar-Vanyar-Noldor host and Morgoth's armies during the War of Wrath. One assumes that Morgoth's creatures and servants were not only fought by the Maiar during that war but by the Eldar (and Edain) as well.

Findegil · 05-27-2016, 02:02 PM

Nice thoughts, Elemmakil and Gothmog. But what is it you want to change (or to leave as it was, if we changed it)?

And consider, what the group has tried up to now is to reduce the number as far as possible, but not to state any specific number. So the intention was that our text would allow the read to interpret any number 3 or 7 or some more (not hundreds) of Balrogs ever existing. And we would as well not make any statement if they can be re-embodied after the War of the Powers or not.

Generaly we try to avoid fixing the debate matters of Middle-Earth as less as possible.

Respectfully
Findegil

Arvegil145 · 08-31-2023, 05:25 AM

Oh boy, kicking another hornet's nest...

The reason, I think, that Tolkien changed 'Balrog' to 'Demon' in his 'Last Writings' is that, the Balrogs being very few in number in the later mythos, he wanted to have their deaths be special, extraordinary events.

Since I'm about 99% sure that Tolkien, even on his wildest days, wouldn't dare to change the death of Gothmog by Ecthelion's hand (or rather, his helmet), I think the answer to the above dilemma is pretty simple: Tolkien simply thought that having one Balrog (the Lord of Balrogs even!) killed by an Elf was more than enough, and that adding another Balrog death (much less two as in 'The New Silmarillion'!) was too much.

Not to mention that it gets repetitive:

1) A Balrog (Gothmog) is killed by an Elf (Ecthelion), and the Elf is killed in the process

2) Another (unnamed) Balrog is killed by an Elf (Glorfindel), and the Elf is killed in the process

and in 'The New Silmarillion' at least

3) Yet another (unnamed) Balrog is killed by an Elf/Elves (Rog and co.), and the Elf is killed in the process (well, soon enough, at any rate)

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this - it is awfully repetitive, and Tolkien would've no doubt noticed this pattern, and changed it to avoid repetition, as well as bringing it in line with the 'maximum 7 Balrogs' idea.

I think that we should adopt the 'Balrog' > 'Demon' change in the case of Glorfindel, and I also propose that we adopt this change in regards to Rog's and the House of the Hammer of Wrath's sally (with the necessary adjustments).

Findegil · 08-31-2023, 07:51 AM

I could agree to this proposal if we and our readers would have agoof idea what a Demon means other than a Balrog.

respectfully
Findegil

12-10-2010, 01:29 AM	#2
Khazad-dûm Pile O'Bones Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 12	Yeah sorry I didn't read all the earlier posts and I agree with that statement that it can't really be proven but I haven't really "studied" (lol) the books as much as a lot of people on the Downs have and that's just the opinion on the subject from someone(myself) who's only read LOTR once (almost twice I'm still working on it lol). I just like to post my short opinions on here (I can't write essays on the subjects like I've noticed other do) because my girlfriend laughs at me when I talk to her about it. Sorry for being way off topic you can ignore this. Thanks for the greetings by the way!

01-07-2016, 01:40 AM	#3
Elemmakil Pile O'Bones Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 19	I read through this thread and found it very interesting. I thought I would contribute a few random thoughts: 1. I note in passing that there are, per the late margin note, "3 or 7" balrogs, and that there were 9 Nazgul (along with 3 Elven rings, 7 Dwarven rings, and 9 rings for Men). I don't know that it has any use or meaning, but Tolkien certainly seems to have liked odd numbers! 2. I never liked the thought of "1,000's" of Balrogs - such numbers cheapens them, and does make the idea of a "siege" of Angband laughable on its face - even the early versions of the stories make them somewhat powerful, and I find the notion hard to give credence to. 3. On the other hand, even 7, let alone a mere 3, Balrogs is to me an unsustainable idea. Why? Well, my concern has to do with the duel of Glorfindel and the Balrog. If there are only a tiny handful of Balrogs, does it really make logical sense that even one of these powerful beings would be committed to basically "night watch" duty away from the main battle? Would they not all be committed to storming the last stronghold of the Noldor? It would be like sending a fleet of destroyers and cruisers into the main fray, but having your Battleship hundreds of miles away on patrol looking for fleeing ships - that makes no sense at all. Now, if there were somewhat more balrogs (at least a dozen or preferably two or three dozen) then the idea of perhaps 2 to 4 being put in charge of the watchers in the surrounding hills becomes much more plausible. Like I said, random thoughts.

05-25-2016, 07:40 AM	#4
Gothmog, LoB Animated Skeleton Join Date: May 2016 Posts: 38	In my it is pretty obvious that Manwe's dealings with the Balrogs in Utumno actually refer to a physical fight and their subsequent defeat. Considering that this was the War of the Powers we can be reasonably sure that the Valar and Maiar (and Melkor's minions) did not exactly fight in a way they and the Eruhíni would fight Melkor's creatures later on. The War of Wrath most likely involved a lot of more physical weaponry and violence than the War of the Powers during which many (if not all) of the ealar involved would not yet have been permanently bound to their bodily forms. In that sense, I see no problems with an unspecified number of Balrogs being 'slain' by Manwe himself at Utumno since that would only have bereft them of their bodily shapes. They wouldn't have died in any real sense. In fact, we know from Note 5 of the Òsanwe-kenta that only one Vala (Melkor-Morgoth) ever became permanently incarnated. With the Maiar this tends to happen more quickly, but Melian is cited as the only example (although that causes problems if we try to imagine the details of her return into the West prior to the voyage of Eärendil). The Istari we certainly can cite as later examples for this (although their incarnation seems to have been 'special' in the sense that it might have been more binding from the beginning, unlike the slow process that made Melian and Sauron earthbound). However, the note also includes an interesting revelation about Sauron and his confrontation with Lúthien during the Lay of Leithian. Unlike the old text JRRT seems to have changed his mind about Sauron not losing his body back then and there, stating that 'the first destruction of the bodily form of Sauron was recorded in the histories of the Elder Days, in the Lay of Leithian.' This suggests that Sauron doesn't become a 'special case' using the One Ring as his anchor to the physical world. And Tolkien also specifies that this extends to Morgoth's mother minions, not just Sauron: 'So it was also with even some of his [Morgoth's] greatest servants, as in these later days we see: they became wedded to the forms of their evil deeds, and if these bodies were taken from them or destroyed, they were nullified, until they had rebuilt a semblance of their former habitations, with which they could continue the evil courses in which they had become fixed.' A momentary 'nullification' due to the loss of one's hröa didn't necessitate a permanent end. One assumes that fallen Maiar/Úmaiar couldn't 'die' and restore their bodies indefinitely, but they could do so quite a few times. In that sense I'd argue that there is little problem with the number of the Balrogs aside from the actual descriptions of certain battles. But there should be an unspecified number of Balrogs throughout all the battles of the First Age, acting as Morgoth's generals and his most fearsome warriors. And there is also no need to mess with any of the details of the fights between Elves and Balrogs (Gothmog & Balrogs vs. Feanor; Gothmog & Balrog vs. Fingon; Gothmog vs. Ecthelion; Glorfindel vs. Balrogs). It is part of the story that the Eldar in their youth were very powerful, or had the potential to become very powerful, and this explicitly confirmed for Feanor. The idea that this man could have fought of multiple Balrogs of the type the Fellowship faced in Moria isn't far-fetched at all. And with Fingolfin fighting against and physically wounding Morgoth himself there is also no reason to believe that Fingon, Ecthelion, and Glorfindel did what they did. One could even imagine that some of the other Gondolindrim slew some Balrogs - they could all have made themselves new bodies for the War of Wrath. The Noldor of Gondolin were the cream of the Eldar warriors in Middle-earth, and we know there was later much and long fighting between the Maiar-Vanyar-Noldor host and Morgoth's armies during the War of Wrath. One assumes that Morgoth's creatures and servants were not only fought by the Maiar during that war but by the Eldar (and Edain) as well.

05-27-2016, 02:02 PM	#5
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,721	Nice thoughts, Elemmakil and Gothmog. But what is it you want to change (or to leave as it was, if we changed it)? And consider, what the group has tried up to now is to reduce the number as far as possible, but not to state any specific number. So the intention was that our text would allow the read to interpret any number 3 or 7 or some more (not hundreds) of Balrogs ever existing. And we would as well not make any statement if they can be re-embodied after the War of the Powers or not. Generaly we try to avoid fixing the debate matters of Middle-Earth as less as possible. Respectfully Findegil

08-31-2023, 07:51 AM	#7
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,721	I could agree to this proposal if we and our readers would have agoof idea what a Demon means other than a Balrog. respectfully Findegil