Does the Silmarillion Contradict Third age History? How Powerful Were Those First age

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Thanks for your thoughts but your comment show me many times you have not read my op or read to fast. I ask that you read my op in its entirety, and than respond to any objections. Ask for clarification if needed anywhere.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Breeding a better orc may be a technological advance, but it does not indicate strength. Consider that Smaug ruined Erebor and Dale by himself, but he was the last of his kind; yet in the 1st Age dragons were numerous and more powerful and used by Morgoth as weapons of war the like of which was not seen in the 2nd or 3rd Age (even Gandalf says, "It has been said that dragon-fire could melt and consume the Rings of Power, but there is not now any dragon left on earth in which the old fire is hot enough," -- implying whatever few dragons were left did not have the power of dragons of old).

"...and others, too, came out of the forest. Great Orcs, who also bore the White Hand of Isengard: that kind is stronger and more fell than all the others."
― Éomer

"black orcs of great strength"


It is clear they were a stronger and more powerful breed just as the Olog-hai and thus more powerful. Siting an example of dragons as a decrease in power overtime and to than try and force it somehow on orc breeds, simply ignores that fact and is an attempt [not sure why] to avoid the improvement.


aS for dragons, smaug was also killed by an arrow by a man, and was said to be the last powerful dragon. The dragons of the first age did not reach full growth for a long time and yes, were very powerful and caused destruction in the first age as well arguable more so than smaug. Since they turned the tide in the war of wrath beating the valar back.

As for the gandalf comment gandalf is not always correct as tolkien said in his letters. But even if he is, that just meant their is not many powerful dragons left, was not smaug the last? did gandalf say this in the hobbit or lotr.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

So too, whether seven or a host, the Balrogs of the 1st Age were more formidable than any orc or troll. And again, Gandalf makes plain when he goes up against the Balrog at the Bridge of Khazad-dum, that Aragorn and the Fellowship, although 3rd Age heroes, were useless against Durin's Bane. His exact words were "Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way." The Maia was stating the obvious. No man or dwarf ever defeated a Balrog, but Ecthelion and Glorfindel had n the 1st Age, and fought them to the death.

Could you show me where in my op I stated balrogs were less powerful than an orc or troll? I never said such a thing, please read my op and take your time to understand it. Once more gandalf can be wrong and has been. But even so i would agree with gandalf as i never said DB [second most powerful balrog ever] could beat 1v1 a elf, or 2 hobbits, a dawrf etc the only one I would argue that could have any real chance would be perhaps, aragorn.


Yes elves of the first age killed the maia balrogs. This argues for my op please read it.

First age vs Third age Elves

“History of the elves, or the silmarillion...rational incarnate creatures of more or less comparable stature with our own.”
-J.R.R Tolkien letters 130

Since morgoth, balrogs and sauron feared the elves at various times in the first age, and since various elves killed balrogs and challenged morgoth, must the first age elves be more powerful than the third age elves? I dont think so. When the silmarillion speaks of elves being more powerful in the first age, it is referring to their collective strength. The elves had a larger population in the first and and their numbers dwindled over time.

In “of the ruin of doriath” the dwarves of Nogrod defeated the mighty kingdom of elves of doriath, captured their city, Nauglamir, and the silmarillion. They than were ambushed by some elves and the rest were destroyed by ents. In of the fifth battle men of dor-lomin and the dwarves of Belegrost won renown at the battle and fought the best rather than any elves. Many times men rose high in elf kingdoms and in warfare and were better fighters than elves. At times the best individual fighter in middle earth was a man. The eldar fled the numonrians who charged for battle in aman, tuna, and the coast of valinor. This is not surprising given in letters 153 Tolkien said “Elves and men are evidently in biological terms one race.” in 181 he says “Elves and men are just different aspects of the humane...elves and men are in their incarnate forms kindrid.”

Originally Posted by Morthoron

In any case, the Men of the West Sauron and Saruman faced during the War of the Ring were dwindled and few compared to earlier in the 3rd Age when Gondor was at the height of its power, or even later when it ceded Rohan to Eorl the Young and the Éothéod because its empire was in decline. Decline is a central theme in Gondor as it was amongst the Elves as they fought the "long defeat"and eventually began to depart from Middle-earth altogether.

Agreed, and restoration as well under aragorn. But as i said before where one side is in decline, the other is on the rise [mordor/moria etc].

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Gandalf had to assume mortal form in order to follow the requirements of the Valar. He was not allowed to present himself in his Maiaric form. Even when he was ressurrected, Gandalf merely became Saruman, or what Saruman should have been. He did not revert to being a Maiaric incarnation.

The Ents crushed the Dwarves in the 1st Age. But they were never a warlike race.

And again, Gondolin assailed by dragons and balrogs trumps a few elephants any day, don't you think?

????? and? you just spend time arguing only he as a maia could face the balrog of the fellowship are you know downplaying his power as an added third age power? and also ignoring what i had said, that his ring added on to him even more power? it seems more you want to argue than understand and disuse. You are seemingly willing to move the goal posts at will just to argue.

The ents beat up already defeated and ambushed remnant of dwarves. I would not equal that with their decision to attack isengard and the orc army after helms deep.


Never said otherwise. But will you agree the domestication of those oliphaunts was an increase in third age power.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The dwarvish forces were decimated in the Battle of Five Armies, and then reduced further by the end of the War of the Ring. Thus, through battle and Tolkien's own direct statement that there were few Dwarvish females assured their declining fate. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Laketown as if were some type of power. After Dale was destroyed by Smaug, they never reached those heights again.

I will refer you to my previous 2 responses on this thread of our discussion.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Your mistake is equating Istari in a mortal form who's incarnate earthly form could be destroyed in the 3rd Age, and a Valar like Tulkas or a Maiar like Eonwe who had no such prohibition, and were revealed in all their wrath. Even Sauron as a physical presence was far greater in the 1st Age before he put all his power into the One Ring. Sauron was defeated three times thereafter (surrendering to the Numenoreans, defeated by Elendil and Gil-Galad, and once and for all when the One Ring was destroyed).

I think my op responds to this well.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Which "some" argued Sauron had more success than Morgoth? I'd love to pick apart their impecunious arguments into tiny pieces. Have you ever read Morgoth's Ring from HoMe? The evil achievements of Morgoth were made plain by Tolkien: "Just as Sauron concentrated his power in the One Ring, Morgoth dispersed his power into the very matter of Arda, thus 'the whole of Middle-earth was Morgoth's Ring'." Morgoth perverted all of Middle-earth, raised mountains, perverted orcs, bred dragons, destroyed the Two Trees, caused the Rebellion of the Noldor. Sauron was Morgoth's lieutenant while Morgoth ruled Arda.

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/index.php

I said some not me and dont care to argue that here. Though I might just for fun on a different thread, or at least follow such a thread as it would be interesting. One thread was on the above forum that I had read it awhile back.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Tolkien called Elrond a lieutenant -- I am merely referring back to what the author said. Elrond may have been part Maia, but he chose to be an elf. That comes with Elvish restrictions, just as Elros choosing to be a Man. In Tolkien's view, you can't be more than one thing. You have to choose a destiny, and being a Maia was not one of those.

and my conclusion followed.

"Calling Elrond a lieutenant and saying he was weaker goes against you as he was part maia and thus below pure elves."

But i than said it likely had to do with birth since he was born after the first elves were created. It does not equate the strength. Otherwise Aragorn was less powerful than the steward of gondor and princes as well.

Yes elrond chose his destiny, not his birth and power.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Ungoliant became overpowered when she consumed the light of the Two Trees. She also wanted the Silmarils and challenged Morgoth himself at this point. This does not undercut Morgoth's power, just magnifies what Ungoliant became, imbued thus with what she had consumed. That there was an alternate evil in the 1st Age who could rival Morgoth himself is proof enough that there is no comparison from the 1st Age to the 3rd Age.

If we assume no power in the third age comparable.