Were Balrogs winged?

[The Barrow-Wight]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wraith of Angmar
Posts: 2337</TD><TD><img src=http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/my_pic.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
Can't let this thread stop.

Keep going!!

The Barrow-Wight (RKittle)
<font size="2">I usually haunt http://www.barrowdowns.comThe Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgiMiddle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.</p>

[Fingolfin]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 23</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
umm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> What it does show is precedent for using a simile as a way to foreshadow the full reveal of a creature. We can’t simply take for granted the use of a metaphor, as you have done. <hr></blockquote>

No it does not the circumstances are completely different. The Balrog is not casting a shadow as the Eagle is and if he was then I would have no argument.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> In the case of the eagle, the shadow is “like the shape of great wings”. Well, isn’t the shadow actually “the shape of great wings”? Of course it is. Tolkien has used this technique before. That’s all I’m showing.<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

Oh plz the shadow is being cast by the Eagle and so is a reflection of its form while the Balrog's shadow is part of its form. Did you even read my arguement?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I submit that Tolkien does show a pattern of portraying mysterious characters/creatures (especially his bad guys) as “shadows” until they draw close enough to b<hr></blockquote><hr></blockquote><hr></blockquote>

He did not portray the Balrog as a shadow the Shadow was a characteristic of the Balrogs corporeal form.
In your example you have only cited areas in which tolkien used shadow as in that cast and so determined by the form and where a shawdow was described because of a lack of visual stimuli. That is not the case in with the Balrog tolkien is quick dogmatic about it and as such your examples are flawed.

you didn't even respond to my point tyou side-steped it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Tolkien also frequently uses “like” in ways that shatter what you seem to perceive as the iron-bound rules for simile use. Not to belabor the point too far but here are a few instances: <hr></blockquote>

Oh plz I never said the term &quot;like&quot; is always indictive of a simile, must I define simile for you? Context is what determines what it is and you can't argue that the text in question does not contain a simle because it does any first year english freshmen could tell you that.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I’m saying that the versions you cite represent a refining process, and that attempting to figure out Tolkien’s “final intentions” from early drafts is often misleading. Your assertion that the drafts remained substantially unaltered is not correct. The earliest version (Vol 7., Sec II) doesn’t have references to either shadows or to wings. In early notes, Tolkien thought that Gandalf’s opponent might be a Nazgûl; in later notes, he wondered if the Balrog was actually Saruman. There was clearly a lot of work done here. If Tolkien wanted the Balrog to have a more menacing, imposing presence, is not equally reasonable to deduce from your references that he would add wings to achieve this effect? <hr></blockquote>

Tolkien says himself he wanted the Balrog to seem greater then it actually was to add massive wings is to make the balrog great by definition and so it would be menacing because of its physical stature which is exactly what he wanted to avoid. To make something feel greater is not to actually make it greater.
The simile is present in the previous drafts but not the metaphor( and yes metaphors by definition seem to be statements of fact and can confuse some but the whole point of prempting the mention of wing with a simile was to make it perfctly clear) indicating that tolkien wanted to keep the idea of wings of shadow, since it is also present in the finalized version, but to have an actual appendage be present in the form of another characteristic would simply confuse the issue and in essence undo the shadow mentioning which has been maintained not only through out the drafts to the finalized version but also in the silm.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> In this case, “winged” can seemingly be read however the reader wants to read it (even your own definition says “move with wings”). But the use of the word “wing” in its various forms seems to be cropping up quite a bit, doesn’t it? Are you telling me that Tolkien, a master of the English language, a philologist by training and by nature, and a contributor to the Oxford English Dictionary, couldn’t come up with a different descriptive word to get his point clearly across? If you are, then I simply disagree with you. <hr></blockquote>

&quot;Winged&quot; in the context of your supposed proof doesn't actually have to mean that wings are in any way involved. Your own definition proves that. What I am saying is tolkien only used &quot;wing(ed)&quot; in the context of balrogs twice, hardly conclusive evidence, especially because he also used it in the context of a hobbit, perhaps hobbits have wings as well. Winged in one is often used to denote similarity as established by your definition and mine and it is not a stretch to say they moved as if with wings because I have already established that the moved very very quickly and wing in the other is in all probability a metaphor since the premptive simile established it as such.


<blockquote>Quote:<hr> It’s the “rivers of flame” (i.e, lava) that “ran down” here. It’s interesting that you use this reference. “Thangorodrim” refers to the sheer mountains reared above Angband, not the fortress itself. This analogy, especially when coupled with “flying from Thangorodrim” in LotR, is extremely suggestive of flight. See Thorondor’s rescue of Maedhros and Fingon. It’s a bit ridiculous to picture un-winged Balrogs running down sheer mountain faces.

As to the issue of their speed – I agree that they are speedy. Which to my mind argues in favor of wings. Nothing in Tolkien’s world (that I know of) travels faster than his winged creatures. His eagles, the Nazgûls’ winged steeds, and yes, the Balrogs, all travel with alarming speed. <hr></blockquote>

Pure conjecture, Are you saying there is no precident in tolkien's writings for land bound extreme speed? Plz tell me you are <img src=wink.gif ALT="">

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I am not disputing that &quot;winged&quot; can be used metaphorically. But again I have to wonder why &quot;winged&quot;, &quot;wings&quot;, &quot;flying&quot;, etc. keep cropping up in relation to Balrogs. <hr></blockquote>

once to denote the shadow a well established featur e of the Balrog and the other to denote speed. Again twice hardly qualifies as a pattern.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I don’t think this contradicts my observation. This quote doesn’t say They passed over the plains of Rohan; it says they passed twice twelve leagues over the plains of Rohan. <hr></blockquote>

Oh plz, how is that any differnent form: &quot;they passed with winged speed over Hithlum,&quot; the structure is exactly the same the only diffenernt being what the insertion denotes, one being speed the other distance, hardly diametric opposites.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> War passes “over” a land, not “through” it. This isn’t travel, but war. Tolkien often likens war to a tide or a wave. The useage is correct. <hr></blockquote>

Of course war passes through land. Besides War in this context is a noun not a verb and so saying that it traveled over land is no different from saying I passed over that same land unless the war was in the clouds.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> This doesn’t help your case, but rather supports mine. The Nazgûl were traveling on winged steeds by this point... <hr></blockquote>

I don't know why I typed those but it hardly hurts my case in that I mean to show that tolkien was not bound by those rules you put forth and in fact broke your commandment in a variety of ways despite the fact in some places his wording was inline with it. Looking at everything as a wehole is much more objective then looking at only certain passages.


<blockquote>Quote:<hr> The Dagorlad is a battlefield, not a region. I admit, this one is cutting it close, but I think the useage is proper here. They crossed the battlefield. <hr></blockquote>

Yes and I suppose the plains of Rohan and Hitlim are not regions either?


<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Where are you getting this from? Hithlum looks like a plain to me, and is often described as being “bounded” by various mountain ranges. And anyway, if it was mountainous, I fear that helps my argument more than it does yours, as mountainous terrain would tend to slow down landbound travel. <hr></blockquote>

I was very tired at the time of that posting and I said and posted something which really don't mnake sense in the light of day. That too does not hurt my argument since mountasinous terrain was not much of a hurtile for the creatures of morgoth but was more of a shield. Case in point Gondolin.

We have no idea how pragmatic the Balrogs were nor do I see how it matters that mountains proved a hinderance, The Blue Mountains and the Misty mountains also proved a hinderance did they not? Does that mena the Eldar flew over them? The fact is we don't know how the Balrogs traveled through mountianous regions but they did not fly. Case in poin Glorfindel's friend the jumper.


<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Whether you think it works or not, Tolkien did it. I have shown several precedents. <hr></blockquote>

You have shown nothing of the kind as I have addressed in the begining of this post. It seems you just don't wish to or can't respond. Besides you have shown no precedients paralell to the Balrog instance since the shadow is not a product of the form or lack of visusl stimulis.

Plz respond to my points instead of simply changing the issue or infering something other.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> This is one of those questions that has no real answer, like “Why didn’t the good guys just use the eagles to fly them to the Cracks of Doom and throw the Ring in?” Since the Balrogs couldn’t breathe fire, like some dragons, I imagine they had to land to engage their enemies. <hr></blockquote>

Then why is their no instance of them landing? Besides, there is a varitable coracopea or weapons they could utilize from the saftey of the air fire, even if not breathed, is one of them, (eg whips of flame)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> It doesn’t say that the Balrogs weren’t flying. This little bit is a greatly compressed piece of action. I don’t think you can draw any conclusive facts from it one way or the other:<hr></blockquote>

Is that a response?, it clearly states that the Balrogs were behind the Dragon and the orcs were behind them. I guss it is possible that the ground under the Balrog was left empty for some reason, right? :P


<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Lay on, Fingolfin! I’m ready! <hr></blockquote>

I was going to but I didn't expect you to be so barrel-headed (not that that is a bad thing <img src=smile.gif ALT=""> )

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


I dislike having to type lengthy posts in which I can only touch on each issue, perhaps it would be more apt to adress one issue at a time. especially since my time on allotted on the inter net is extremely limited <img src=frown.gif ALT="">


</p>

[Fingolfin]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 24</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
umm

Sorry about all the spelling and errors in grammer, as i said i have wee little time and constrained to the point of disarding grammer and various other points(for the time being) i would like to bring up but would be rather lengthy.

[Mister Underhill]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dread Horseman
Posts: 688</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: umm

Fingolfin, the conversation is now rapidly devolving into, as one observer has opined, a back-and-forth of &quot;Is not!&quot;, &quot;Is too!&quot;. Our respective arguments will have to stand or fall on their own merits, as I've answered yours as best as I can, and I don't think you've made any new points in your most recent post, only accused me of sidestepping yours.

FYI, EZBoard will automatically spell-check your post for you. All you have to do is press the button that says, &quot;Spell Check&quot; next to &quot;Add Reply&quot;. It only takes a few extra seconds and will probably make your arguments regarding grammar seem much more credible.

I have not exhausted my taste for lively, respectful debate by any means. If you care to reply in that spirit, I'll be happy to carry on.



</p>

[obloquy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 32</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Argument.

I must say, Mister Underhill, I find your arguments to be wonderfully presented! You've all but convinced me. I think the only reason I'm not ready to say Balrogs had wings (and could thus fly, since I think the ornamental wings idea is ridiculous) is that I think Tolkien may never have chosen a solid mold for all or any of his Balrogs.

Now, my addition to this debate is for those of you who believe that the FotR has evidence enough, and that the wording itself makes this an open and shut case. This quote I believe to be pertinent: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> But Joe, taking it up carefully with both hands, like a bird's nest with eggs in it, wouldn't hear of parting with that piece of property, and persisted in standing talking over it in a most uncomfortable way.<hr></blockquote>

This is taken from Dickens' Great Expectations, as some of you may have recognized. Here, Joe holds his hat like a bird's nest. Four paragraphs later (and I promise, he's still holding a hat):<blockquote>Quote:<hr> All this time (still with both hands taking great care of the bird's nest), Joe was rolling his eyes round and round the room, and round and round the flowered pattern on my dressing gown.<hr></blockquote>

Joe's hat is not a bird's nest. Despite the marvelous Dickens' seemingly apparent claim. In fact, when reading this, one doesn't even question whether Joe was, in fact, accustomed to wear a bird's nest in place of an actual hat.

I realize that this is not Tolkien, and this is not Balrogs, but I know that some people rely solely on the English used to form their opinion. I'm not saying Tolkien couldn't have meant that the Balrog had outstretched, literal wings; I'm saying that he didn't necessarily intend for that to be the gist.

</p>

[Fingolfin]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 25</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
umm

Typically debates proceed with one party saying a fact is true while the opposite party says it is false. I don't see how this is a negative thing. You don't have to be patronizing and if you just don't want me to say anything at this board anymore becuase I annoy you then just say so. I came here expecting to debate tolkien issuse not face accusations of having a bad attitude when i simply hold to my convictions.

WHen I said you were side-steping I menat that you weren't addressing my core point, whether or not that was intentional none can say but the fact remains.

WHy do you think I wanted to focus on one point at at a time?

If you want me to leave I will. I am sure that this is not the only tolkien board out there. Have I outlived my welcome?



</p>

[GandaIf The White]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 263</TD><TD><img src=http://www.herr-der-ringe-film.de/HdR/crewmckel.JPG WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: umm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> &quot;..and its wings were spread from wall to wall.&quot;<hr></blockquote>
-FoTR, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum.

I still think that the Balrogs were winged. And I also think that they could not fly, but they used there wings for sudden bursts to &quot;draw themselves up to great heights&quot;.

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000064>GandaIf The White</A> at: 6/29/01 5:03:01 pm

[Mithadan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of Mist
Posts: 911</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: umm

Fingolfin, the Balrog's Wings issue traditionally raises very strong sentiments and opinions in posters. The reason for this is that, unless Christopher Tolkien possesses some hidden gem on the issue, the question of whether Balrogs have wings cannot (except in the opinion of the individual reader) be resolved with certainty. There are strong arguments both for and against the creatures possessing pinions (I am pro-wings).

Although I am reluctant to put words in his mouth, Underhill did not ask you to leave but rather said that, at this moment, he does not have anything more to add. In the tradition and etiquette of this board, Underhill is suggesting that you agree to disagree, and his post should be taken as such and nothing more. You are free to continue to post on this thread or any other, and anyone, Underhill included, is free to respond...or not. You two have had a lively session providing quite a bit of info for others to make their own judgments. But I believe that Underhill thinks the dead horse has been beaten soundly enough for now. Good show to you both.

--Mithadan--
"The Silmarils with living light
were kindled clear, and waxing bright
shone like stars that in the North
above the reek of earth leap forth." </p>

[The Barrow-Wight]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wraith of Angmar
Posts: 2338</TD><TD><img src=http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/my_pic.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
A friendly word to Fingolfin ...

If you feel that someone doesn't like your arguments or your style (neither is the case in this instance, as Mithadan explained), its no reason to consider packing up and leaving. Someone as good as supporting your point as you are surely doesn't have to retreat at the first hint of animosity (again, I stress that there was none in this case). And the truth is that you won't find a more civil Tolkien discussion location anywhere on the Internet. You would have been personally lambasted ten times over already on any other board (as would have Underhill <img src=smile.gif ALT=""> ).

Please continue this and other discussions here. And enjoy the friendly debates that develop.

Thanks,

The Barrow-Wight (RKittle)
<font size="2">I usually haunt http://www.barrowdowns.comThe Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgiMiddle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.</p>

[Mister Underhill]

Dread Horseman
Posts: 690
Re: umm

Quite right, Mith. Fingolfin, I haven't asked you to leave. On the contrary, I encourage you to post as often as you like and to stay as long as you want to. After all, it was your first long post that reinvigorated this discussion.

But we've reached an impasse. You think I sidestepped your points; I think I met them as well as I am able. You think I am wrong about the grammar, and I think you are wrong. What am I to do? I'm certainly not going to start pulling quotes from "The Elements of Style" or some other grammar manual, and there's no point in going back over the same arguments a second time. If my arguments are insufficient, then so be it. I'm just here to have fun and express my ideas, not to win or lose.

I would add, though, that name-calling and sarcastic arguments are probably not the best way to stimulate further discussion. I am not generally inclined to spend time researching and composing posts to rebut arguments that begin with the phrase, "Oh plz..." Mithadan is right -- debates like this one that get so detail-oriented can rouse strong sentiments among the participants. I apologize if I've said something that's helped to escalate matters.


obloquy:

Thank you for the compliment. Despite being a vigorous advocate for wings, I am inclined to agree that Tolkien never really solidified his conception of Balrogs the way he did other of his creatures. Certainly we see many different versions of them throughout his work.

I am a big fan of Dickens, and I acknowledge your analogous cite. I think I disagree, though, that it really is analogous in this case. Dickens deliberately uses "bird's nest" the second time for comic effect (an ability with which he was well endowed).

I think that the same argument that non-wingers use against "its wings were spread from wall to wall" can be used equally against their own "shadow wings". If you step back a few paragraphs from "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings", you'll find the quote I mentioned earlier: "What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater..."

Could we not contend, based on this quote, that the "shadow" itself is metaphorical -- that the Balrog's dark form, especially in the gloom of Moria, is only like a shadow? I think what's happening here is that Tolkien has swathed his beastie in shadow and darkness (as he so often did with the Nazgûl) to heighten its mystery and menace before it steps forward, stands up to its full great height and spreads its wings -- its ultimate intimidating pose.


Gandalf the White:

The argument over wings/no wings basically boils down to trying to figure out Tolkien's meaning from the words he used. Since the encounter with the Balrog is over so quickly, there is little to go on, and the little that does exist is worded in such a way that opposing interpretations of it both seem reasonable. Both sides have been trying to bring in, in effect, circumstantial evidence that tips the scales in favor of one reading over the other.

Edited by: Mister Underhill at: 6/27/01 9:30:12 am

[Fingolfin]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 26</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm Sorry

I am sorry I got kinda frustrated because it seemed like you weren't listening (I now know that wasn't the case <img src=smile.gif ALT=""> ) even so that is no excuse for my sacasim and I humbly apologize and offer up my sword.

How could we continue though, should I try to bring up another isssue since these have been covered?

</p>

[Mister Underhill]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dread Horseman
Posts: 691</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
No problem...

Your most gracious apology is appreciated but unnecessary. Keep on postin'!

</p>

[The Watcher in the Water]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 78</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/bluepal.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: No problem...

I must admit that i havent been bothered to fully explore the longer posts made by Messers Fingolfin and Underhill but I just thought of something (I hope this hasnt been covered before) Just before we start I will admit that I am probably pro-wings, having not really thought about it before i just had in my mind the wings. My thought centres on the Maia nature of the Balrogs. Is it at all possible that they both do and do not have wings? WHat i mean is that could they not have some sort of shape-shifting ability with which they can assume the power of flight with wings or something. As such most times they would not appear with wings, but when required a set could materialize? I dont know that I am saying this well but what thinkest y'all?

(Once agin I hope this is a new idea and I havent bored everyone!) <img src=smile.gif ALT="">

The road goes ever on...</p>

[Glornan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 58</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/bluepal.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: No problem...

I don't think they could shapeshift easily. I mean, all maiar/valar had to form some sort of body to be able to do stuff in ME, so they were no longer shapeless spirits. It appears that only higher, stronger, more powerful Ainur could easily shapeshift (e.g. Melkor,Sauron), and even then they could lose that ability (e.g. Sauron at the end of Numenor). So, once all the Balrogs had made themselves a body, it couldn't be changed, unless because of a wound of course.

By the way, is there any passage in the books that all the Balrogs were the same? I mean, couldn't they all have made a different body?

Glornan, Feeling sigless</p>

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I thought that it was about time to bring this topic back to everyone's attention.

Just to clear things up:

*Fordim climbs onto a high place*

BALROGS HAD WINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

*Fordim gets down from high place and takes a bow*

*Fordim turns and sees a large green hand coming toward him from stage left to yank him away and close the thread for good*

*Fordim cowers*

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

While reading UT yesterday, I came upon this quote.

[Voronwë: ][The Eagles] alone save the Noldor know the Hidden Kingdom and guard the skies above, though as yet no servant of the Enemy has dared to fly into the high airs.

(UT I 1- emphasis mine)

Note that the emphasised part has no time limit, like “no creature of Morgoth has dared to fly...since the Eagles made abode in the Echoriath.” It means that up to that point none of Morgoth's creatures had dared to fly in the high airs.

Now, for this rescue mission...

...now swiftly [the Balrogs] arose, and passing over Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.

(The Silmarillion 9 - emphasis mine)

How could the Balrogs fly over Hithlum without taking the high airs? Any lower and they would have met a tragic end into one of the mountains. Ergo, they didn’t use their wings to fly this mission.

[Encaitare]

Oh man. I saw the title and was just drawn in, knowing a controvery was brewing

I don't think Balrogs had wings. I think the whole "shadows like wings" bit in FotR is just a metaphor for the shadow of dark power that the Balrog put out. And if they did have wings, why wouldn't the Balrog in Moria be able to fly out of the cavern under the Bridge of Khazad-Dûm? Plus, I believe I read somewhere that at one point Trolls traveled with the Balrogs, and Trolls certainly can't fly. The only thing I am sure of is that the Balrogs couldn't fly, wings or no, but I personally don't think they had wings anyway.

[Brian The Blue]

Some say yes some say no but does it say in the books weither they were or not? And if so please bring it to my attenetion.

[Zoe]

There is no text that anyone's aware of which describes balrogs as having wings (so there's nothing saying &quot;and then the balrog flapped its wings and flew away&quot; or whatever). But there are bits of texts which can be interpreted in various ways, and these meanings can be 'added together' to come to the conclusion that balrogs were winged or weren't. The problem is, in some cases, the one piece of text can be interpreted either way.

Anyhow, I'm certainly no expert on balrogs. For some more informed opinions, you should probably look in the articles section of www.barrowdowns.com.

[Orald]

I just thought all of you should know this. You see Tolkien and I were really good friends back in the day when I was still in my mothers womb. And he new that this topic would spawn discussion, so he told me to tell all of you that Balrogs didn't have wings, because he thought they would look to much like devils.

[Zoe]

Durelen, that's the poorest argument I've ever heard. Although I must say it is the most original.

[Orald]

The truth, I believe they don't have wings, I only wish that i could have spoken to Tolkien. And if you haven't realized all of my arguments are pretty poor.

[Zoe]

I personally have never pictured them in my mind as having wings - although that's not based on any particular text, that's just my imagination.

Durelen - but that argument was especially poor No, really, I don't think your comments on these boards are poor at all. They're certainly more well-thought-out than mine.

[HerenIstarion]

Wight
Posts: 247

All those who think that Balrogs had wings apply as an argument the duel at the Khazad-dûm bridge. Still, Balrog challenging Gandalf is surrounded by dark cloud likewings. No explicit evidence is given that those were proper wings used to fly. For more information I will repeat above stated advi e - see articles on www.barrowdowns.com

...but what they are really like, and what lies beyond them, only those can say who have climbed them...

[the Lorien wanderer]

Yeah, most of your reasoning is poor ;-). Didn't you come up with the Communist thing too?
And no, I don't think Balrogs have wings.

[gamegie]

Well I am sorry but I am certain that Balrogs have wings. As are most depictions of Gandalf and the Balrog correct, they show shadow formed wings on the Balrog.

Durelen, what was that about Tolkien and you being friends????? Do pink elephants have wings too?

[Voronwe]

Well if they did have wings, they were purely for show, otherwise we would certainly have seen a description of a Balrog flying. Take, for example, Gandalf's duel on the bridge and Glorfindel's duel at the eagle's cleft. Both times, the balrog was plunged into an abyss. If the balrogs could fly, then they would certainly have flown out.

Curiously, I am still undecided as to the truth of this matter.

[Mithadan]

Far beneath the ruined halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their Lord; and now swiftly they arose, and passing over Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.

Sil. p. 81.

&quot;It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall...&quot; Fellowship of the Ring, p. 345.

Undoubtedly, Balrogs are not great fliers, having massive wings, and are unable to fly in close quarters, such as the chasm or near the cliff wall in Gondolin.

[Mister Underhill]

Hehe... The coming of this thread has seemed inevitable for the past couple of weeks, and now here it is at last. I'm throwing in with Mithadan on this one. Lay on, champions of the no-wingers!

[Mithadan]

Nice Olog Hai article Sir Underhill, though you didn't address all the arguments made in that long thread. There, as here, I don't have an ax to grind so I'll leave well enough alone. Honestly, it never occurred to me that Balrogs might not have wings until I started seeing threads debating the subject. As the LoTR quote states, JRRT says they (or at least it) had wings. I'm aware the prior paragraph says &quot;shadow like wings&quot; or something to that effect. But the text says what it says. JRRT chose his words carefully. If he meant to say &quot;Its wing-like shadow stretched wall to wall&quot; he would have said so.

[The Barrow-Wight]

And in the true spirit if The Barrow-Wight vs. Mr. Underhill....

NO-WINGS (at least none that are worth a darn)

Why would a Maiar need wings to fly anyways? They don't even really need bodies.

Article at the site.

[noldo]

Balrogs DO have wings.

As Mithadan already stated:

The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall;...

I'm not sure whether Tolkien is referring to the &quot;darkness&quot; or the &quot;balrog&quot;, but when it says wings it really does say wings.

[onewhitetree]

lol, NO! Just ask one.

[Orald]

If Balrogs have wings, and the wings are to large to fly in closed quarters and tight fits, then maybe they should clip there wings or at least trim them. Balrogs must have been really dumb creatures to give themselves wings and be unable to fly very well.

[Grand Admiral Reese]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 40</TD><TD><img src=http://www.facelink.com/edit/raw/rawimage/50/1315350.jpg?flezbwidth=60&flezbheight=60?flezbwidt h=60&flezbheight=60?flezbwidth=60&flezbheight=60?f lezbwidth=60&flezbheight=60?flezbwidth=60&flezbhei ght=60 WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/onering.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Balrogs

Hows this: Balrogs have wings of darkness and shadow that are more for show than to fly.


Tall ships and tall kings Three times three, What brought they from the foundered land Over the flowing sea? Seven stars and seven stones And one white tree. .</br>
Administrator @ <a href=http://pub6.ezboard.com/bthegrandadmiralsforums>The Grand Admirals Forums</a>, <a href=http://pub10.ezboard.com/bb5techforums>The Grey Council Forums</a>, <a href=http://pub9.ezboard.com/bechostation12>The McClain Council</a> and <a href=http://pub14.ezboard.com/bthegrandmoffsforums>The Grand Moff's Forums</a>.</br> </p>

[Brian The Blue]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 18</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/onering.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Balrogs

Well i see that you are as devided as the rest of the boards i've visitied. But in my personal opinion i think that they did have wings.

&quot;dont meddle in the affairs of wizards...&quot;

</p>

[the Lorien wanderer]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 60</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/onering.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Balrogs

I rather agree with the Admiral on this one.

Not all those who wander are lost.</p>

[Saulotus]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 315</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/onering.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Balrogs

And I rather agree with no-one.
Or perhaps; no-one agrees with me.
But then; I also think that men had pointed ears.

<img src=wink.gif ALT="">

</p>

[Orald]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 139</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/onering.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Balrogs

I have to say that your idea on men having pointed ears is not an original idea. I believe I said something like that on another ez board, everyone just thought I was stupid. Think about it though, if men and elves could be mistaken for one another, then there ears must not have been very different rounded or pointed. It was always the eyes that gave them away not the ears, Not The Ears. DO YOU HERE ME!!

fit of rage, completely under control now, sorry.

</p>

[Zoe]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 91</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/onering.jpg" align=absmiddle> Pointy ears

But couldn't it have been that elves had 'normal' ears? After all, Tolkien had already transformed the idea of an elf from a pixie sitting on a toadstool to that of the firstborn, noble and proud.

Or is there some text which rules out that idea?

</p>