Bye Bye Balrogs

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 57</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
I am placing this in a discussion separate from the main &quot;Fall of Gondolin&quot; as changes in Balrog passages are totally independent of any other features of the tale and do not effect it one way or the other.

The problem.

In his legendarium Tolkien introduced the Balrog, defined in the Gnomish Lexicon per BoLT 1, Appendix, under Balrog as:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> a kind of fire-demon; creatures and servants of Melko<hr></blockquote>A &quot;host of Balrogs&quot; appears in the notes for the projected Battle of Unnumbered Tears in the same work, in chapter X, &quot;Gilfanon's Tale: The Travail of the Noldoli&quot;. In BoLT 2, &quot;The Fall of Gondolin&quot;:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... and upon them rode the Balrogs in hundreds; ...<hr></blockquote>Later accounts in the Silmarillion and Annal traditions continue the tradition that there are large numbers of Balrogs. In The Lost Road (HoME 5), &quot;The Later Annals of Beleriand&quot;, under the year ****272 [472]:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> There came a hundred thousand Orcs, and a thousand Balrogs, ...<hr></blockquote>The final reference to a large number of Balrogs is in Morgoth's Ring (HoME 10), &quot;The Annals of Aman&quot;, 1099:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Thence, seeing that all was lost (for that time), he sent forth on a sudden a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained, 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.<hr></blockquote>But in his comments Christopher Tolkien gives a scribbled comment of unknown date on this passage:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> 'a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained' &gt; 'his Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained faithful to him'. In the margin my father wrote: 'There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed.' See p.*79, §50.<hr></blockquote>But JRRT never modified any of the passages in earlier manuscripts mentioning large numbers of Balrogs. Even here JRRT does not modify the following sentence stating that the Balrogs who come to Morgoth's defence are slain. Surely it was not JRRT's intention to omit all Balrogs later?

In all late accounts of Morgoth's return to Middle-earth the Balrogs come to to Morgoth's aid against Ungoliant. If there were only ever 3 Balrogs, then either one is killed in the first battle, and 2 remain, or 2 are killed and only remains later. Yet we must have 3 Balrogs distinguished from the rest, Gothmog lord of Balrogs who was slain by Ecthelion, the Balrog who was slain by Glorfindel, and the Balrog who escaped the final fall of Thangorodrim and later became known as Durin's Bane. It is very hard to understand how Tolkien could ever have limited the number of Balrogs to three.

Allowing 7 Balrogs at least lets some be slain by the Valar, perhaps 3, and gives us 4 hidden who can emerge later. Or it may be that Tolkien images the Balrogs to have re-embodied themselves. The Osanwe-Kenta declares:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> So it was also with even some of his 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.<hr></blockquote>In theory then we might have 7 Balrogs slain by the Valar, the same 7 slain again at Gondolin, and then again by the Eönwë's host in the War of Wrath, save for one who escapes.

However in the third Age speculation on the origin of Durin's Bane there is no suggestion that ir is a re-embodied Balrog, which would surely have been a guess if it were known that Balrogs in the past had re-embodied themselves after being slain. Possibly they were only re-embodied by Morgoth's power and not their own. Yet might not Sauron have also done so, in the Second Age, when at his greatest might?

With such floundering suppositions, hypotheses, and probabilities I will leave the debate to those who enjoy arguments of ignorance.

In QS77 CT does not use the account from the Annals so no Balrogs are mentioned specifically in the story of how the Valar captured Melkor, and in later mentions of Balrogs nothing is preserved to indicate whether they were many or few. This may be the best that can be done, as we really don't know what JRRT had in mind in reducing the number of Balrogs so drastically.

For most of the legendarium it makes no difference whether Balrogs are few or many. The accounts of the battles where they appear are but summaries and give no details of the Balrogs' role in the fighting.

The one exception is the story of &quot;The Fall of Gondolin&quot; from Unfinished Tales. Here are Balrogs in great multitide who play important roles.

Possibilities in a revised Silamrillion?

****1.) Ignore the note as an unimplemented proposition for change that requires too much rewriting to implement. Morgoth has still a thousand Balrogs and more among his followers. There were hundreds at the fall of Gondolin.
****2.) Omit all mention of number of Balrogs from the Silmarillion material and the tale of the &quot;Fall of Gondolin&quot; to at least follow the direction of JRRT's note if not truly able to attain the exact number. If the reader gets the impression that maybe there were maybe about fifty Balrogs, that is still an improvement. This is what CT did in the published Silmarillion, though he did not have to deal with a full account of &quot;The Fall of Gondolin&quot;.
****3.) Insist (but perhaps not specifically say) that the Balrogs are limited to 7 (Gothmog, the Balrog slain by Glorfindel, Durin's Bane, and four others) and implement this strictly and allow no re-embodiments.
****4.) Insist (but perhaps not specifically say) that the Balrogs are limited to 7 (Gothmog, the Balrog slain by Glorfindel, Durin's Bane, and four others) and implement this strictly but allow there to somehow be 7 again after the Melkor's return to Middle-earth. Perhaps he either re-embodied those slain, or created new Balrog bodies to make up the number.


</p>

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 58</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Minimizing Balrog numbers in the Fall of Gondolin

This is an attempt to remove as many Balrogs from the account of &quot;The Fall of Gondolin as possible. It has turned out to be astoundingly easy. We may be able to live with even six Balrogs.

Each passage is given a code of the form FG-B followed by a two-digit number.

[ ]******Normalized, usually used for proper names indicating they are here in final form, not as in original text. Eg. &quot;M[orgoth]&quot; probably represents an original &quot;Melko&quot;
{ }******Material to be deleted.
<u>Underline Material</u> inserted for grammatical reasons or as editorial bridge or replacement for deleted material

FG-B01: Balrogs on the dragons of flame.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... and upon them rode the Balrogs {in hundreds};<hr></blockquote> FG-B02: Balrogs shoot arrows of fire.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... yet a worse matter was it that {a company} <u>one</u> of those demons climbed upon the coils of the serpents {of iron[?]} and thence loosed unceasingly from {their} <u>his</u> bow{s and slings} till a fire began to burn in the city to the back of the main army of the defenders.<hr></blockquote>I have changed the company of Balrogs to a single Balrog. This links to the next item. Removal of words &quot;of iron&quot; are per the modification of the dragons, and should not be considered part of the changes to be considered in this discussion.

FG-B03: Rog's men attack.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... but the men of Rog leapt even upon the coils of the serpents and came at {those} <u>that</u> Balrog{s} and smote {them} <u>him</u> grievously, for all {they} <u>he</u> had whip{s} of flame and claws of steel, and {were} <u>was</u> in stature very great. They battered {them} <u>him</u> into nought, {or} <u>and</u> catching at {their} <u>his</u> whip{s} wielded {these} <u>it</u> against {them} <u>him</u> that they tore {them} <u>him</u> even as {they} <u>he</u> had aftoretime torn the [Elves]; and {the number of Balrogs} that <u>this Balrog</u> perished was a marvel and dread to the hosts of M[orgoth], for ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men.
****Then Gothmog Lord of Balrogs gathers all his demons that were about the city and ordered them thus: {a number} <u>two</u> made for the folk of the Hammer and gave before them, but the greater {company} <u>part</u> rushing upon the flank contrived to get to their backs, higher upon the coils of the drakes and nearer to the gates, so that Rog might not win back save with great slaughter among his folk.<hr></blockquote>This is the most difficult passage. The company of Balrogs, reduced to one Balrog in the previous change, is now attacked by Rog and his company and slain. Some daring emendation.

FG-B04: Entrance into the city.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... and behind comes a creature of fire and <u>a</u> Balrog{s} upon it.<hr></blockquote>We should probably allow only one Balrog rider per dragon.

FG-B05: Ecthelion against the Balrogs.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Of these demons of power Ecthelion {slew} <u>drove back</u> three, for the brightness of his sword cleft the iron of them and did hurt to their fire, and they writhed.<hr></blockquote>Daring but minimal emendation as we cannot aford to slay even one more Balrog if it can be helped and I would like to keep the sentence. Also, the Balrogs are now entering the city by the gap made by the dragon, so meeting three together is not unreasonable.

FG-B06: The Great Market.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... where a force of Or[k]s {led by Balrogs} came on them at unawares ....<hr></blockquote>or<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... where a force of Or[k]s led by <u>a</u> Balrog{s} came on them at unawares ....<hr></blockquote>This corresponds to FG-C01 but should be considered here and not with the C series.

FG-B07: To the Square of the King.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> But now the men of M[orgoth] have assembled their forces, and seven dragons of fire are come with Or[k]s about them and <u>a</u> Balrog{s} upon <u>one of</u> them down all the ways from [sou]th, [we]st, and [ea]st, seeking the Square of the King.<hr></blockquote>This corresponds to FG-C02 but should be considered here and not with the C series. Reduce Balrogs from many to one (rather than omit) as in the next paragraph Gothmog lord of Balrogs appears.

FG-B08: The king and his guard.<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... the royal house laid on and the king came down in splendour among them and hewed with them, that they swept again much of the square, {and of the Balrogs slew even two score,} which was a great prowess indeed:<hr></blockquote> This corresponds to FG-C04 but should be considered here and not with the C series.

</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000212>jallanit e</A> at: 8/13/01 9:21:24 pm

[HerenIstarion]

Deadnight Chanter
Posts: 1483

Insist (but perhaps not specifically say) that the Balrogs are limited to 7 (Gothmog, the Balrog slain by Glorfindel, Durin's Bane, and four others) and implement this strictly and allow no re-embodiments

I vote for number 3

for I really doubt that Morgoth was able to:

created new Balrog bodies to make up the number

But there is still:

Silm77
For of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, demons of terror.

That leaves us with Sauron + 7 balrogs + many other corrupted maiar. Let me recollect - one inhabits Carcharoth, several others are incarnated goblin chieftains (Boldog), few may be counted among those who assailed the moon (yet with round earth concept they must be omitted). Is this many? Or must be numbers of corrupted maiar reduced from many to several?

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 62</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

There are also vampires, werewolves, other Uruk-spirits seen by early Elves, whatever being took the shape of Amlach son of Imlach, and the &quot;few servants, and those of less might and cunning&quot; that Morgoth left behind in the east to continue the corruption of Men. Some of the beasts other than werewolves that were involved in attempting to spy out Gondolin may have been Úmaiar also. The spiders of Nan Dungortheb?

&quot;Several&quot; seems too small to me. Perhaps &quot;some&quot; might work, but I think &quot;many&quot; may stand. Of the Maiar most seldom took human form in Middle-earth, and even in Aman took forms such as animals or plants, and I would expect such would therefore be true among Morgoth's Úmaiar.

Possibly also the majority of these beings were permanently disabled in the War of the Valar.

</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000212>jallanit e</A> at: 8/13/01 9:22:43 pm

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 52</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

I would also vote for option 3, though I don't think that we should mention the number 7. In any case, we cannot keep the thousands. If we mention 7, though, then we run into the problem of the War of the Powers: were any Balrogs killed then? It seems to me unlikely that no Balrogs took part in that battle, but for any to have died there causes problems in the later wars.

As for re-embodiment: I definitely don't think this should be used. While it does seem logical that the Balrogs, being Maiar, could survive being slain (like Sauron), everything in JRRT's writings points to this NOT being the case.

A few comments on the proposed Balrog changes:

FG-B01: I think we should consider taking out all reference to Balrogs riding dragons. This really falls under both the Balrog and mechanical dragon problems. I know we're not to address the wing debate in this project, but this sentence touches on that. If Balrogs can fly, why are they riding dragons? I think the best thing to do would be to leave the wing situation as ambiguous as possible; i.e., to delete any references that might point in one direction or the other. Additionally, we must remember that at the time this was written, the 'dragons' were machines; there is no other example of anyone using normal dragons for transport.

FG-B03: I think this is good, considering the difficulties. The only possible emendation I would make would be not to specify the number two in &quot;{a number} <u>two</u> made for the folk of the Hammer and gave before them&quot;; perhaps 'a few' or 'several'?

FG-B04: Same as FG-B01.





</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 12</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

HerenIstarion has asked me to post on this topic.
I'll start with this quote I guess.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> In any case, we cannot keep the thousands.<hr></blockquote>

Why not?
On what basis are you stating this?
And is the statement of at most 7 being stretched beyond intent?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> If we mention 7, though, then we run into the problem of the War of the Powers: were any Balrogs killed then?<hr></blockquote>

Yes there were.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> It seems to me unlikely that no Balrogs took part in that battle, but for any to have died there causes problems in the later wars.<hr></blockquote>

What later wars?
Did you mean earlier wars?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> While it does seem logical that the Balrogs, being Maiar, could survive being slain (like Sauron), everything in JRRT's writings points to this NOT being the case.<hr></blockquote>

I will say that here you are on the right track of deduction, aside from the general assumption on Balrog natures.



</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 13</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Let me clarify the Balrog deaths at the War.

Morgoth's Ring p. 75.
Annal 1099
&quot;Thence, seeing that all was lost (for that time), he sent forth on a sudden a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained, and they assailed the standard of Manwe, 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.&quot;

This states all the remaining Balrogs were slain.

Care to guess were new ones came from?

</p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 53</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

&lt;&lt;In any case we cannot keep the thousands&gt;&gt;

&lt;Why not?
On what basis are you stating this?
And is the statement of at most 7 being stretched beyond intent?&gt;

Even if the number 7 is disregarded (which we cannot so easily do), this indicates that later on JRRT was thinking of the Balrogs as being FAR less numerous. It appears also that the importance and the power of the Balrogs increased between the Lost Tales and the later Silmarillion (I believe Michael Martinez did an essay on this, and I doubt there's anything I could add to his argument, so check for it at suite 101 if you like).


&lt;What later wars?
Did you mean earlier wars?&gt;

No; I mean later wars. The War of the Powers was the war that ended in the long siege of Utumno, before the Quendi were summoned to Valinor. If any of the 7 Balrogs died there (and I agree, some must have) then we have very few Balrogs to work with in the War of the Jewels.



</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 14</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Even if the number 7 is disregarded (which we cannot so easily do)<hr></blockquote>
Who said disregard it?
I think I said 'stretched beyond intent'.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> this indicates that later on JRRT was thinking of the Balrogs as being FAR less numerous. It appears also that the importance and the power of the Balrogs increased between the Lost Tales and the later Silmarillion.<hr></blockquote>
Say rather that the importance and power of 'some' Balrogs increased and I'll happily agree.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> (I believe Michael Martinez did an essay on this, and I doubt there's anything I could add to his argument, so check for it at suite 101 if you like).<hr></blockquote>
No thank you, I don't like.
I 'like' Tolkien pure and without bias.
But thanks for the information anyway.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> If any of the 7 Balrogs died there (and I agree, some must have) then we have very few Balrogs to work with in the War of the Jewels.<hr></blockquote>
Again with [the = only] 7 Balrogs.

This sounds like a record stuck in a groove.

I suggest that Balrogs be re-examined if you wish to use them at all in this project.

Of course, you are free to set aside my suggestion.


</p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 128</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

-------------------------
Quote:
Who said disregard it?
I think I said 'stretched beyond intent'.
-------------------------

How is this 'stretched beyond intent'?

--------------------------
Quote:
Let me clarify the Balrog deaths at the War.

Morgoth's Ring p. 75.
Annal 1099
&quot;Thence, seeing that all was lost (for that time), he sent forth on a sudden a host of Balrogs, the last of his servants that remained, and they assailed the standard of Manwe, 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.&quot;
---------------------------------

And now lets add the further clarification from JRRT in how he changed that:
Morgoth's Ring p. 80.
$50 'a host of balrogs, the last of his servants that remained' &gt; 'his Balrods, the last of his servants that remained faithful to him'. In the margin my father wrote: There should not be supposed more than 3 or at most 7 ever existed.'

This seems to show JRRT's latest intent and actually shows an intended change to the text quoted above. As 3 would seem to be quite difficult to reconcile to the 'facts' 7 seems much more likely.


The keeping of 'thousands' of Balrogs would not really be suitable. As noted by CT in BoLT2, p.212, the Balrogs are 'less terrible and more destructible' than they were concieved of afterwords. If Morgoth had thousands of Balrogs available in the War of the Jewels then very short work would have been made of the Exiles.

----------------------
Quote:
Again with [the = only] 7 Balrogs.

This sounds like a record stuck in a groove.
----------------------

What is wrong with that?

---------------------------
Quote:
I suggest that Balrogs be re-examined if you wish to use them at all in this project.
----------------------------

What do you propose?


Tar-Elenion

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.



</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 15</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

HTML Comments are not allowed

</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 16</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Does the UBB code here often mistake text for HTML, even when it obviously isn't?

The shorter version.

Why is it stretched?
Because the intent is regarding Maia Balrogs, while the text, even after modification, retains that the Balrogs wrought before the War of the Powers were slain.

These are seperate animals.

I know of the quote and its abuse.
I'm also aware of the removal of the possible allegory to the Christian theology about 1/3rd of Heaven in rebellion.

Yes, if there were thousands of Maia Balrogs then there would be trouble for the exiles. But when the origins are examined you'll find that both thousands and at most 7 co-exist without cancellation of the other and without trouble for the exiles, in the sense intended.

Aiwendil: the skooling on the War of the Powers and the War of Wrath was not needed. Had you read the clarification post directly afterward and posted before your reply, you would have seen that this was so.

Dead Balrogs don't work too well as soldiers in later battles. That's why I asked which you were referring to.

What's wrong with that?
Propaganda.

What do I propose?
Start at the beginning and understand what Balrogs are and were without trying to 'fix' the data.
The fixing will not be needed when that is done.

There was a bit concerning your unbegotten conversation with A.K. which I'm not going to retype.
I was just curious if A.K. ever took his head out of the sand.

This topic interested me enough to send HerenIstarion my conclusion after examination of the origins, and where he then asked me to post here on the topic.
I assume he'll post his thoughts on it when he's done mulling it over.
Until then, a consensus examination would be proper I think, rather than a blatant statement of conclusion.

</p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 54</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

&lt;&lt;No thank you, I don't like.
I 'like' Tolkien pure and without bias.
But thanks for the information anyway.&gt;&gt;

If you mean that looking at Tolkien's works in a scholarly way, and trying to draw conclusions about them based on the available facts, is 'biased', you may not like this project very much. At any rate, there are valid arguments for the increasing importance of Balrogs there.

&lt;&lt;Because the intent is regarding Maia Balrogs, while the text, even after modification, retains that the Balrogs wrought before the War of the Powers were slain.&gt;&gt;

There is no reference anywhere, as far as I know, to a distinction between Maiar Balrogs and Balrogs that were 'wrought' before the War of the Powers. In the post-LotR writings, the idea that Balrogs were ever created by Melkor is definitively abandoned, and they are made Maiar. Perhaps you could provide a reference?

&lt;&lt;I know of the quote and its abuse.
I'm also aware of the removal of the possible allegory to the Christian theology about 1/3rd of Heaven in rebellion.&gt;&gt;

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Again, a reference would be most appreciated.

&lt;&lt;But when the origins are examined you'll find that both thousands and at most 7 co-exist without cancellation of the other and without trouble for the exiles, in the sense intended.&gt;&gt;

Could you please make specific references rather than leaving us in the dark? What text in particular, did you examine to come to this conclusion?

&lt;&lt;Had you read the clarification post directly afterward and posted before your reply, you would have seen that this was so.&gt;&gt;

I apologize; if you look at the times for those two posts, you'll see they sort of crossed.

It sounds like you have some interesting ideas on this topic; that's why I'd like to see your specific proposal, and your sources.

</p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 129</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Balrogs, etc

'Bob':
Aiwendil asked many of the questions I would have so I won't bother restating them, though some of your replies seem a bit 'vague'. A little more explication might be in order.

re: A.K.
I think he probably would still maintain his position (which has some valid (if, IMO, unsupportable (in fuller context)) points).


Aiwendil:
Conrad Dunkerson has done some 'essays' about Balrogs (well researched and with citation and quotes) in the newsgroups (rec.arts.books.tolkien), entitled 'The Truth about Balrogs'. in Parts 1-6. If you are interested in reading them they can likely be found by 'searching' the newsgroup from 'google'.

</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000211>Tar Elenion</A> at: 8/18/01 7:00:58 pm

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 17</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> If you mean that looking at Tolkien's works in a scholarly way, and trying to draw conclusions about them based on the available facts, is 'biased', you may not like this project very much.<hr></blockquote>
Isn't that exactly what I suggested be done?
Go back and actually do the research yourself, rather than build upon incorrect information.

I once read in a respected location that some chemical-imbalanced conclusion by someone that Balrogs were machines shows some of the scholarly approaches you suggest. On that point, you are correct, I would not like the project then under those circumstances.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> In the post-LotR writings, the idea that Balrogs were ever created by Melkor is definitively abandoned.<hr></blockquote>
You're fixing again.

Quenta Silmarillion still holds that the were the first made of his creations. It even goes on to specify that they are Ealar-- not Maiar. Note the difference! Then there is a later term--Umaiar. Note the difference here also. Umaiar is not simply 'bad' Maiar. Christopher points to a reference point which shows the difference.

When you backtrack through the origins--this will begin to make more sense. If you want to start in the middle or the end of the origins you will not unlearn what you have learned.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Again, a reference would be most appreciated.<hr></blockquote>
The bible. You've heard of that one before right?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Could you please make specific references rather than leaving us in the dark? What text in particular, did you examine to come to this conclusion?<hr></blockquote>
What point wasn't made clear. I examined them ALL. I don't pick and choose by what I think fits best.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> It sounds like you have some interesting ideas on this topic; that's why I'd like to see your specific proposal, and your sources.<hr></blockquote>
I suggest to HerenIstarion, since enough time has now gone by, to submit his conclusion. What he has read from me is either correct or the biggest load of garbage ever. Let him decide which extreme, or if necessary somewhere in the middle, is applied. Decide from that.

This still doesn't release you from the scholarly obligation of doing the research yourself on Balrogs instead of building on other perceptions.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>
re: A.K.
I think he probably would still maintain his position (which has some valid (if, IMO, unsupportable (in fuller context)) points).<hr></blockquote>
Valid?

This guy didn't even realize that you were talking of Elven Years. Did he even bother with the math there? 40 E.Y. = 5,760 Sun years, with his contention that elves didn't procreate until at least 3,500 years had passed shows that his figure is more strict than the 'average' OR that the unbegotten don't need 40-50 years, even though that's exactly what they got before Orome took away the volunteers. And the incredible logic of elves popping out kids every 40-50 sun years until the end of the world is laughable. 300 generations? That was utterly--well it was just--utterly. I could state more absurdities, but you already know them I think.

Of course he will maintain his position. Anything else is unacceptable to his perceptions and therefore preposterous.


</p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 130</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

------------------
Quote:
Quenta Silmarillion still holds that the were the first made of his creations. It even goes on to specify that they are Ealar-- not Maiar. Note the difference!
--------------------

(ref. MR, p.165)
'Ealar': Spirits
Differentiated from 'fear' (spirits) in that 'fear' are the indwelling spirits of the Incarnates, while 'ealar' are not incarnate with 'hroar'. Would not 'ealar' be applied to the Ainur in general?

------------------------
Quote:
Then there is a later term--Umaiar. Note the difference here also. Umaiar is not simply 'bad' Maiar. Christopher points to a reference point which shows the difference.
-------------------------

(for easier feference)
CT refers to the relationship between 'Maiar and Umaiar' and 'Vanimor to Uvanimor' in MR p. 79 and SoME p. 293 et. al.


'u-' indicates a simple negation in earlier versions, while 'il-' or 'ul-' indicates an opposite. Later 'u' had the sense of 'bad, uneasy or hard'.
(See BT 42).

'Maiar': 'the Beautiful', 'Umaiar': 'not-Beautiful'

-----------------
Quote:
I suggest to HerenIstarion, since enough time has now gone by, to submit his conclusion. What he has read from me is... &lt;snip&gt;
--------------------

I will wait for that before simply assuming that I think I know what you are getting at.



-----------------------
Quote:
Valid?
-----------------------

&quot;Some valid&quot;.

-----------------------
Quote:
This guy didn't even realize that you were talking of Elven Years. Did he even bother with the math there? 40 E.Y. = 5,760 Sun years,
-------------------------

As the Elves might say: &quot;la&quot;.

---------------------
Quote:
&lt;snip&gt;
I could state more absurdities, but you already know them I think.
------------------

Probably, though, to be fair, I have my own biases that colour my assertions.

-------------------------
Quote:
Of course he will maintain his position. Anything else is unacceptable to his perceptions and therefore preposterous.
------------------------

This is probably somewhat off topic (and likely rather 'mysterious' (and of little interest) to those not involved) so I will cease _here_ (i.e. place), though if you wish to continue the discourse feel free to 'e-mail' me (my 'address' is in the 'profile' section).


Tar-Elenion

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.


</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000211>Tar Elenion</A> at: 8/19/01 8:43:29 pm

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 55</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

I need not restate Tar Elenion's comments on Ealar, Umaiar, etc.; but I agree with him.

&lt;&lt;Isn't that exactly what I suggested be done?
Go back and actually do the research yourself, rather than build upon incorrect information.&gt;&gt;

I agree that it's important not to blindly build upon someone else's research, but certainly it can be considered. Why painstakingly work out conclusions that have already been proven by someone else? And what's the use of writing an essay, approaching it scientifically, and documenting your sources if it's going to be disregarded by everyone else? I don't think there's anything wrong with, for instance, reading MM's essay on Balrogs; if there are errors, they can certainly be refuted, but it may also provide answers that I, for instance, would not have thought of myself.

&lt;&lt;Aiwendil: I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Again, a reference would be most appreciated.

Bob: The bible. You've heard of that one before right?&gt;&gt;

As a matter of fact I have. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, not being a practising Christian, but what does this have to do with Tolkien? Was your original reference (something about a third of heaven) something to do with the Silmarillion or merely an analogy that went right over my head?


</p>

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 71</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Aiwendil

Actually, we can keep the thousand Balrogs if we want to. One late note can be disregarded when so much more definite full late material is being disregarded. At the moment I'm just trying to see the implications if we try for seven Balrogs maximum, and it came out better than I thought it would (though I'd still feel more comfortable with at least a dozen.)

I don't see that Tolkien necessarily made all Balrogs much more powerful.

Durin's Bane may always have been more powerful than some, and apparently a sorcerer to boot as he used a counter-spell against Gandalf's shutting-spell. Gothmog might have been even more powerful, but Ecthelion kills it by tripping it and himself into a well where both died. Water could quite be a weakness to a fire spirit. Durin's Bane also had its fire quenched by water until it finally got into the open again and could flame on. In a well full of water it also could possibly have drowned.

CT's opinion about later Balrogs being more powerful gives no citations. The only Balrogs we ever see outside of undetailed event summaries are those at the battle of Gondolin, and one powerful Balrog in Moria. That's not really enough to draw conclusions from.

For the War which results in the destruction of Angband, only the Annals of Aman specifically mentions Balrogs in the passage about the destruction of the Host of Balrogs which I cited in my first post here, the one to which JRRT attached that bothersome note about seven. If you want to stick to seven strictly that vivid passage of the withering would probably have to go, unless you wish to imagine a re-embodiment, not explicitly mentioned.

Tolkien's story there seems to be that most of the Balrogs came to Morgoth's aid and &quot;died&quot; then, but some few were left behind in the depths of Thangorodrim, perhaps trapped there, perhaps wounded, perhaps just being smart and hiding. Some or all of these later came to Morgoth's rescue on his return.

But I agree, even dropping that passage doesn't get rid of the problem. It's hard to imagine, just because it was not mentioned, that no Balrogs were destroyed in that war. But sometimes the best thing you can do with a problem is admit you don't know the answer.

Which brings me to the Balrogs with wings. Or rather, Balrogs who can fly, as there are some who support winged Balrogs but not flying Balrogs. If Balrogs could fly then the question arises why they did not fly over the wall of Gondolin, perch on high towers, and rain down their firey darts. And again, why did the eagles not notice Sauron's raid which must have gone right by their eyries? Thorondor was so clear about the value of his protection of Gondolin in &quot;The Wanderings of Húrin&quot;, and then lets an entire army of Orks, Balrogs, and dragons cross in.

JRRT could have solved these problems easily, the same as any writer of fan fiction can, by a little addition or a little rewriting. That Balrogs ride on the new fire-drakes is one of the givens of the old FG, and is used throughout. Eg. Ecthelion is struck down by a Balrog's whip, but Tuor hews off a foot of the dragon on which it rides. I'd rather not make changes in Tolkien's text because some Balrogs might possibly be able to fly, though no-one has ever definitely caught one doing it.

I agree about the problem with &quot;two&quot;. My difficulty was that we have only six Balrogs at the most left alive. If we say &quot;a number&quot; what number could that be? Since this is the smaller part of the Balrog troop, the number must be either two or one. If you know there can only by six Balrogs at the most, then saying &quot;a number&quot; here just sounds wrong. I also want a word or phrase more imprecise than &quot;two&quot; but which could easily mean &quot;two&quot;. I couldn't and can't think of any that satisfy me. The &quot;lesser part of them&quot;? Perhaps &quot;a smaller part of them&quot;? &quot;A couple of them&quot;?


Bob W,

Revelations 8:12<blockquote>Quote:<hr> The fourth angel sounded, and one third of the sun was struck, and one third of the moon, and one third of the stars; so that one third of them would be darkened, and the day wouldn't shine for one third of it, and the night in the same way. <hr></blockquote>Tolkien generally disliked allegory and did not much use it, but occasionally does. If you see an allegory pertinent to the number of Balrogs or something else in this thread you think might be explained by this text then explicate it for us. Please don't rudely say it's the Bible. That's not what Aiwendil was asking. He was asking its pertinence.

I also do not know of any reference distinguishing between types of Balrogs. The note indicating three or at the most seven simply indicates Balrogs. If there is such a reference, please point it out to us, or please point out the references from which you deduce this conclusion.

No-one here ever claimed Balrogs were machines.

No-one here ever claimed Balrogs were &quot;created&quot; by Melkor, unless speaking specifically of texts before the latest accounts for some other reason.

If Úmaiar does not mean something like evil Maiar, then explain what it does mean. If an eäla cannot be an Ainu or Maia or Úmaia or Vala, then explain why not. My reading of the text in which it occurs*** I believe the only such text*** is that it would refer to all Ainur, except possibly those that have become permanently incarnant. Perhaps their eälar actually become fëar at that stage. Tolkien never uses the term eäla elsewhere in published writings so who can say. Possibly there are also spirits created as eälar inside Eä who are not Ainur and also not incarnates.

Whether this passage is later or earlier than the one which appears in the published Valaquenta and defines the Balrogs as originally Maiar is an open question. But it probably doesn't matter, since Maiar were, at least in origin, eälar, that is, disincarnate spirits. What Tolkien has changed in these latest writings is the idea that Melkor himself created the Balrogs.

If you want to put forward an hypothesis on something, please give your citations and your reasoning, not implications that we haven't done research ourselves because we haven't come up with the same answer you have, an answer you have not yet provided.

I still can't see what you are getting at.

</p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 56</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

&lt;&lt;One late note can be disregarded when so much more definite full late material is being disregarded.&gt;&gt;

But all of the definite late material that has so far been disregarded has been disregarded under rather different circumstances. I assume you are mostly referring to the Myths Transformed round-world version. This has been rejected because it is merely a projected change, and cannot be reconciled with the existing texts save through major editorialization. The 7 Balrog note is different in two ways: First, it does not cause such serious problems for revision; you have shown that this figure can be worked into even the very old FG from BoLT. Second, it is a change that, even if we cannot follow to the letter, we can follow in spirit. Such a distinction would be meaningless with regard to the Myths Transformed material; either the world was round or it wasn't. But on the Balrog question, we have the option of deciding that even if the number 7 causes insoluble contradictions, we can follow the idea of the note, reducing the thousand Balrogs to an indefinite, but much smaller, number. I think that this option is certainly better than simply forgetting about the note.

&lt;&lt;CT's opinion about later Balrogs being more powerful gives no citations. The only Balrogs we ever see outside of undetailed event summaries are those at the battle of Gondolin, and one powerful Balrog in Moria. That's not really enough to draw conclusions from.&gt;&gt;

I think it is. For the moment, in considering Balrog strength, I suggest we consider only the late sources; we have:

1. LotR: The Balrog here is quite powerful. It is a foe, in the words of Gandalf, 'beyond any of you'. Note the reactions of Gandalf and Legolas on first seeing the Balrog. Legolas: 'Ai! Ai! A Balrog!'; Gandalf: 'A Balrog. Now I understand. What an evil fortune. And I am already weary.' It seems that what's distressing them is the very fact that this is a Balrog; there is an inherent assumption here that Balrog=very powerful. Remember that nothing about this Balrog was previously known, and if we assume that Durin's Bane was somehow more powerful than an ordinary Balrog, the Fellowship certainly had no way of knowing that.

2. Last Writings: Here (HoME XII) Tolkien is concerned with the figure of Glorfindel, whose fame comes mainly of his battle with a Balrog in Cirith Thoronath. Here it is assumed throughout that slaying a Balrog is truly a great deed, and that Glorfindel is one of only a few people who has done so.

3. The Late '7' Note: This indicates, at the very least, that Tolkien's ideas about Balrogs had changed considerably, and, taken with the evidence from Last Writings and especially LotR, leads to the almost inescapable conclusion that Balrogs were now much more powerful. Further, in limiting the total number of Balrogs to '3 or at most 7', JRRT shows that this is not an increase in power for just some Balrogs; otherwise he could have simply retained the host and made a few captains such as Gothmog more powerful. This note indicates that he thought of Balrogs as a group; if they increased in power between 1920 and 1970, they ALL increased in power.

4. Myths Transformed: The discussion of 'Boldogs' here has implications for Balrogs. A distinction is made between the Balrog demons and Maiar of lesser might who become famous Orc-captains. There is, I think, an assumption here that Balrogs are among the more powerful Maiar servants of Morgoth, distinct from the less powerful Orc-spirits.

True, the 'host' remained in the immediately post-LotR writings, but the important thing is that it was eventually changed (possibly in response to the powerful Balrog in LotR). We need not be concerned with when that change occurred; the fact is that this was JRRT's final view.

&lt;&lt;If you want to stick to seven strictly that vivid passage of the withering would probably have to go, unless you wish to imagine a re-embodiment, not explicitly mentioned.&gt;&gt;

This, I think, is the most troublesome section, and the only possible reason not to stick to the number 7. Right now, I think the best option is to remove the withering passage and not to specifically refer to 7, leaving the text ambiguous as in the '77.

Regarding the 'two' Balrogs: I'm also at a loss to come up with another suitable phrase. I suppose 'two' can stand if we decide to stick to 7 total, though if anybody else has a suggestion it would help.

</p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 131</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

I seem to have 'lost' what is being referred to with the 'two Balrogs' comments. Could someone please point it out? Did it have something to do with Rog's folk?

Tar-Elenion </p>

[Mithadan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of Mist
Posts: 943</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

I don't venture down here enough; certainly not as much as I used to. I think that this debate would benefit from a bit of parsing, i.e. address one issue at a time. I'm not weighing in on the merits, but rather advocating some civility. Few enough wander into this forum and new faces should be greeted somewhat gently, considering that much work has been done and newcomers may not be familiar with how things are hashed out.

Things seem to have quieted down a bit, nonetheless lets try to make the debate friendlier, shall we? As the only member of &quot;management&quot; with a strong fondness for this forum (others are interested, just so I'm not misunderstood), it seems that newcomers are to be welcomed and perhaps educated a bit before tearing their arguments to ribbons.

As I said to someone in another messageboard, Bob do I know you?

--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>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 58</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Tar Elenion:
Yes, it does have to do with Rog. Check jallanite's
FG-B03.

</p>

[Mister Underhill]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dread Horseman
Posts: 807</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> As the only member of &quot;management&quot; with a strong fondness for this forum...<hr></blockquote>I resemble that remark! <img src=wink.gif ALT="">

I usually try to follow the work going on &quot;down here&quot; (I like that phrase -- &quot;down here&quot;. In the basement of the Barrow Downs? With power tools, picks, and shovels?), but I almost never post since my HoME kung-fu isn't nearly strong enough to contribute meaningfully most of the time. I'm very fond of this forum.

Mithadan, I take it your (very mild) chastisement is aimed at the Canon regulars, but I've been following this discussion closely (I have a special place in my heart for Balrogs, it seems), and for the record I thought that some rather aggressive posts by Bob were handled with grace and restraint. What's with the 'tude, Bob? That baby keeping you up nights? I'm interested in hearing your views, too, but there's no need to be so curmudgeonly about it. Why not post this composition you've sent to HI so we all can have a look?

To get back on topic, I am in strong agreement with limiting the number of Balrogs as the MR note suggests, and I'll add my own feeble contribution to the discussion: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> From LotR, Bk II, Ch 7, The Mirror of Galadriel

'It was a Balrog of Morgoth,' said Legolas; `of all elf-banes the most deadly, save the One who sits in the Dark Tower.'<hr></blockquote>

</p>

[Mithadan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of Mist
Posts: 944</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

No slight intended Underhill. I was more commenting upon the fact, that once upon a time, the only wights posting &quot;down here&quot; were Lindil, Saul and I. For clarification's sake, my mild chastisement was intended for all concerned and not just the canonites (not to be confused with canaanites).

For the record, I also support a lesser number of Balrogs during the War of the Jewels, though if I understand Bob correctly (and this is one of the sources of the heat of this debate; lack of clarity), he suggests that there were many but most were destroyed during the siege of Utumno. This works too. Anyway, considering the power of the Balrogs in later conceptions, where only the greatest warriors stand any chance of effectively contesting a duel with a Balrog, the Noldor simply could not have lasted against 1000 of the beasts.



--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>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 18</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> As I said to someone in another messageboard, Bob do I know you?<hr></blockquote>
If I said yes, would it make my advice more valid or less?

</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 19</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> What's with the 'tude, Bob? That baby keeping you up nights? I'm interested in hearing your views, too, but there's no need to be so curmudgeonly about it.<hr></blockquote>
Didn't think I had a 'tude'.
I can get one if you like---just let me know.

I gave some advice that it should be examined again.
Then demands of proof and quotes were issued, and rather rudely too.

It's not my job to hand out answers to a group of people who profess to research everything.

If the consensus is that the at most 7 quote stands no matter what, then it doesn't matter what I would say since it would be refuted as 'clearly and without a doubt' the quote means this... *insert perception by whomever*.

I simply question those perceptions.
For this I am labelled 'unscholarly' and 'curmudgeonly', and in the last label I assume it's more about the bible comment.
Or is it about the 'vagueness' of the replies?
See above for that---concerning handing out answers.

</p>

[Mithadan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of Mist
Posts: 947</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

If you said yes, I would still reserve the right to voice my own more or less informed opinion, though if I knew who I were debating with it might affect the degree of deference I would accord the poster's &quot;scholarship&quot;. I was merely commenting that your mode of argument seems familiar to me, even if your nickname does not match.

You made some good points, though my skepticism concerning the concept of 1000s of Balrogs pre-dated the note which appears in MR. Up to now, this discussion appears to be a matter of strict construction vs. divining JRRT's intentions (perhaps &quot;reasonable construction&quot. As such, it probably cannot be resolved with certainty and must be a matter of opinion.

So Bob, do you have any opinions concerning &quot;round Arda&quot; or the extent of commerce out of the East Gate of Moria?

Congrats on the baby, whoever you are.

--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>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 20</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I was merely commenting that your mode of argument seems familiar to me, even if your nickname does not match.<hr></blockquote>
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
And more importantly; does it matter?

As for any other questions asked, I have replied in private to you, using the email linked with your name on the Downs. Look there.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> You made some good points, though my skepticism concerning the concept of 1000s of Balrogs pre-dated the note which appears in MR.<hr></blockquote>
I understand the note and its place in the evolution of Balrogs.

</p>

[Mithadan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of Mist
Posts: 949</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Your familiarity or lack thereof matters not a whit. Doesn't amount to a pile of jack.

Lets resume the discussion. Was I correct in supposing that you propose a greater number of Balrogs early on whose numbers are whittled down dramatically? If so, when? Or, are you suggesting that the definition of Balrog might include entities of lesser power, not fitting the LoTR image of a great, fiery entity (with wings <img src=wink.gif ALT=""> ) but greater than orcs, etc? If so, where does the Boldog fit in? Lets assume some semblence of civility, put aside all slights perceived or otherwise, and have at it.

--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>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 59</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Bob: Neither I nor, I'm sure, jallanite, intended any rudeness. Alas, it is the nature of internet forums, I think, to create the impression of hostility when none is present. Understand, please, that by asking you for sources I meant in no way to scorn or reject your comments; on the contrary, I was interested enough by your ideas to wonder whence they came.

&lt;&lt;It's not my job to hand out answers to a group of people who profess to research everything.&gt;&gt;

This is, perhaps, an example of the tendency I mentioned above toward the perception of hostility; I'm not sure whether it was intended, but I at least detect a note of antagonism in the above sentence. I have not, as far as I can recall, ever professed anything on this forum.

&lt;&lt;If the consensus is that the at most 7 quote stands no matter what, then it doesn't matter what I would say since it would be refuted as 'clearly and without a doubt' the quote means this... *insert perception by whomever*.&gt;&gt;

No one has said that the '7 quote' stands no matter what. However, as one of the principles behind this project is to use the latest ideas of Tolkien that can be incorporated into the legendarium, it is looking as if that quote will have to be followed. If you can provide some evidence for another possibility, please do so; we'd all be sincerely interested to see it.

</p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 133</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Gentlemen,
As Aiwendil points out communicating in this medium can lead to (mis)perceived inferences of hostility where none was actually intended and can result in actual 'hostilities' breaking out with fully realized intent. If 'Bob' wants to maintain his privacy lets let it go at that. He has put forth some interesting ideas (albeit vaguely) with the intent of having those on this forum further their _own_ research. He has noted that he gave 'Heren Istarion' some of these concepts and interpretations in a (probably) more specific form and is leaving it for 'H.I.' to post them.
'Bob' took me up on my offer to discuss some other matters (regarding a debate elsewhere on the 'Awakening') privately and seems a not unreasonable person overall. Lets give 'Bob' a break and see what he has to offer and accept it or not on its own basis.
When (or if?) 'Heren Istarion' gets around to posting what 'Bob' has given him we can see what 'Bob' is implying then. (And accept or tear it apart as needed <img src=wink.gif ALT=""> ).

Tar-Elenion </p>

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 73</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Tar Elenion:

On the number &quot;two&quot;. In FG a diversion is created by Gothmog when<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... a number made for the folk of the Hammer and gave before them, but the greater company rushing upon the flank contrived to get to their backs, higher upon the coils of the drakes and nearer to the gates, so that Rog might not win back save with great slaughter among his folk.<hr></blockquote>If we assume seven Balrogs maximum, then six only are alive at this time, so the smaller part of the company really must equal &quot;two&quot; or &quot;one&quot;, and &quot;one&quot; seems to me very improbable.

I was attempting to keep the number down to seven in total without actually saying so, or specifying any exact numbers and in this sentence lost the ability to do so.

Most posters who earlier considered the matter, including myself, felt that it would probably be impossible to actually reduce the Balrogs to seven (except by deleting large portions of the battle sequences in the fall of Gondolin), but that at least we might remove the specific indications of a large number of Balrogs. My attempt was however to do whatever was necessary to truly go all the way down to a maximum of seven Balrogs, on the principle that I might as well try the extreme first, if only to prove that it cannot be satisfactorily done.

Too my surprise, I found that we can use seven Balrogs. Therefore perhaps we should drop the game of being vague about the actual number being &quot;seven at most&quot; and include that phrase when Balrogs first appear in the revised Silmarillion.

But if we decide not to actually use the note in the text, then the number in this passage should be vague. Unfortunately English understandibly seems not to contain a word of a kind that can be used here to mean vaguely any quantity and which would also be felt right if the actual number turned out to be two. In my idiolect, at any rate, a number imeans a number somewhat above &quot;a couple&quot; or &quot;a trio&quot;, few means &quot;five-ish&quot;, several means &quot;sevenish&quot;, some must be more than &quot;two&quot; to feel right in this context, and so forth... &quot;Two&quot; of anything is too easily observable as that exact quantity to allow for substitution of a vaguer term in general use.


Aiwendil:

I agree totally that making Balrogs more powerful was likely one of the reasons JRRT reduced their numbers.

And having fewer active in the wars and in the fall of Gondolin makes it easier to understand how the Elves were able to resist.

Yet if that note had not come down to us, the problem of Balrog's varying in power would not have seemed horribly bothersome, perhaps would not have been noticed by many.

The Balrog of Moria, managed to destroy an entire dwarf kingdom. Or did he? We don't know to what extent he did so alone, and to what extent he gathered a force of Orks and trolls. The story of the fall of Moria is never told. Smaug the dragon, without help, alone destroyed the kingdom of the Lonely Mountain, but it was also a smaller kingdom.

Is a Balrog more powerful than a dragon?

According to one passage in BoLT 2 Balrogs are as powerful or more powerful, as given in chapter II, &quot;Turambar and the Foalóke&quot;:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ****Now those drakes and worms are the evillest creatures that Melko has made, and the most uncouth, yet of all are they the most powerful, save it be the Balrogs only.<hr></blockquote>Yet we are told of the death of only one dragon in FG and the possible fatal wounding of another, while many more Balrogs are slain. Perhaps this is explicable because these dragons are new, improved versions of metal and pure fire, more powerful than any before? Possibly also the power of armored dragons to resist attack was greater than that of Balrogs (or most Balrogs), though Balrogs might have had great offensive capibilities.

Smaug, as a winged dragon, one of the last kinds created by Morgoth, might have been more powerful than most of the dragons of the First Age.

(This is all unanswerable speculation of course!)

Though it is not actually said, I get the impression that the Great Worms bred, and Smaug and other dragons came from that brood. As Thórin remarks in his story of Smaug's devastation, it was<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... the usual unhappy story, it was only too common in those days.<hr></blockquote>This links with the note under TA 2570 in Appendix B:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> About this time Dragons reappear in the far North and begin to afflict the Dwarves.<hr></blockquote>Where are these other dragons? Slain, probably, as the years went by. And if dragons are slain, then why not Balrogs?

It also seems to me that the slaying of so many Balrogs at FG is partly because of the suicide mentality of many of the defenders: expecting to die, knowing they are going to die, they fearlessly make any effort to take their enemies with them. Ecthelion's suicide grip on Gothmog is an example.

Of course, I am rationalizing, but probably only as we all would do if a version of FG with its many Balrog slayings had been included by Christopher Tolkien in The Silmarillion, or if that note simply did not exist. We would live not unhappily with the thousand Balrogs.

Gandalf rightly warns the party to fly. There is no use in staying, and the Balrog, like a dragon, is far more powerful than any of the party. That does not mean that he might not have been slain, as Bard slew Smaug, or Éowyn and Merry slew the Witch-king, or Glorfindel unexpectedly slew his Balrog in a single duel rather than in the press of battle where odd chances are more likely, where perhaps twenty Balrogs were slain by Elves, but hundreds of Elves may have been slain by single Balrogs. Gandalf's remarks may owe more to realizing that this being is Durin's Bane, and having encountered the counter-spell that this creature cast against Gandalf's shutting-spell, than to it being a Balrog. That Legolas &quot;wailed&quot; is perhaps more convincing of the power of any Balrog. But might he not also have wailed if a dragon appeared?

But the note exists, and it can be used, and should be if acceptable changes can be made.

My changes in FG were designed to be minimal, yet I feel, naturally, that it would be better not to be so daring if possible. Then in another mood, I also feel that perhaps changing those three Balrogs driven off by Ecthelion to one is a necessary improvement, even though it would involve yet more changing of the original text, which is not perhaps necessary.

Where does one stop on the slippery slope of making minimal emendations and writing fan fiction? I don't really like reducing the party of Balrogs with bows and slings to one Balrog with a bow, however much I like the effect of the tale that is produced. Should I have made them two, one with bow and one with sling, and then had one slain? That would be more difficult to accomplish.

Perhaps another version should be attempted, by myself, or someone else, also trying to keeping the number strictly to seven or less, but purposely making it as different as possible from the version I produced.

If very different versions are possible, then to some extent we are writing fan fiction to fill in Tolkien's gaps. I think in some moods my Balrog work is very close to the fan fiction line, closer than I am comfortable with. But perhaps still not unexceptable.

</p>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 21</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Was I correct in supposing that you propose a greater number of Balrogs early on whose numbers are whittled down dramatically?<hr></blockquote>
No, they got decimated in the end at the War of Wrath.

But please note that the dastardly NOTE refers to the Balrogs in the War of the Powers _where it was inserted_ and to which it particulary applies.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> If so, when? Or, are you suggesting that the definition of Balrog might include entities of lesser power, not fitting the LoTR image of a great, fiery entity but greater than orcs, etc?<hr></blockquote>

Fiery entity---yes, but not necessarily in all cases.
Lesser power Balrogs---yes.
Greater than Orcs---yes.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> If so, where does the Boldog fit in?<hr></blockquote>

Boldog as far as I know is an Ainu-Orc.
I have heard a suggestion or two that this possible title may be basis as a defintion for lesser Balrogs. The Author himself, while unsure as to if it is a title or name, still classifies it creature-wise as Ainu-Orc(s).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> have at it<hr></blockquote>
Is this to be a re-enactment of Arthur and the Black-knight?
And who is who here?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> If you can provide some evidence for another possibility, please do so; we'd all be sincerely interested to see it.<hr></blockquote>

I have given the process by which I began the examination to HerenIstarion [who has the my truest answer in his possession], Mithadan and Tar-Elenion.
This is a cut and paste response I made:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> The defintion and evolution of Fays is a good place to start, especially the later distinction between the original groupings of Fays [Nermir, Tavari, Nandini, Orossi, Oarni, Falmarini, Wingildi] and the differentation made where they are no longer Fays, and where Fay is defined as a child of the
Gods [later changed to Maia]---a reference here to the Tom Bombadil thread is in order I think. Add in the evolution of the Earthlings [closely tied with the now homeless and definitionless Spirits [who make a re-appearance as Ealar---see the Eagles question by JRRT which seperates Ealar and Maiar as non-equivalent. Follow it with the evolution of Orcs [which is inescapably tied with Balrogs in every reference and respect]. Of particular interest is the LoTR time-frame alteration where Orcs are the 'Spawn of the Earth'.<hr></blockquote>

Tar Elenion made this comment in private discussion of the topic in reply to some points I had made clear [or semi-clear anyway], and I ask him to forgive me for the presumption of quoting him without permission [non-repeated; as private email is private and I truly do apologize]. Since you already stated the conversation, I thought the least I could do is show that SOME type of answer was 'discerned'.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> So we have the 7 Valaraukar (Maiarin Balrogs) as Balrog lords and other 'Incarnate Balrogs' (as the lesser Balrogs that could form the larger numbers?<hr></blockquote>

My reply was: 'That is essentially correct.'

I stated the point that began the examination for me---the offer of Balrog-Lordship to Hurin in the Lays as a point that may introduce perceptions as to what a Balrog really was or _could_ have been, and if the acceptance of the offer would have re-defined Hurin as a Balrog. It went from there back to the beginning to follow the processes.

I also mentioned to T.E. issues about the investment of Will into Balrogs, and questioned him as to why this would be necessary for Ainu who were as capable as Melkor in this without his aid, among other points of contention.

As a further suggestion: read the part about Trecherous gifts and lies and note that there is a differentation between those who followed him in the beginning and OTHERS [a natural presumption would be other Ainu, but this is _presumption_] who are 'corrupted' with these 'presents' and lies.

And now you have all the information needed to determine if the issue needs examination here or not since my suggestion alone was insufficient.

To quote the Geico Geko: 'Stop calling me.'


</p>

[lindil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path
Posts: 694</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

jallanite posted:Where does one stop on the slippery slope of making
minimal emendations and writing fan fiction? I don't really
like reducing the party of Balrogs with bows and slings to
one Balrog with a bow, however much I like the effect of
the tale that is produced. Should I have made them two,
one with bow and one with sling, and then had one slain?
That would be more difficult to accomplish.

lindil:I [in certain moods- to use J's apt phrase] favor a &quot;if it can't be used after updating the names and eliminating old concepts - then don't use it&quot; model, due to the very question jallanite raises in the above quote.

The Fall of Gondolin has proven to be far more complex than i ever dreamed, even from the relative sidelines, and much of this is due to the complexity of the ideas contained in the story, [Balrogs, various types of Dragons, old and new Elvish , etc.] but it has been compounded by a relatively liberal editing scheme that let's us cotemplate replacing 3 balrogs w/ whips and bows w/ varying numbers andcombinations of B's w/ varying combinations of weapons.
I am by no means bashing all of the work of aiwendill and jallanite and others, just pointing out the dilemna that J is acknowledging as having it's roots in the working principles that allow this much freedom.

I will reread the points brought up Bob W , is there a reason you can't post it directly Bob? lost file or somesuch?
Waiting for H-I to post it [or not] is a little bizarre [ and sorry if a reason was put forward earlier I missed]. After all we have a Silmarillion to edit <img src=wink.gif ALT=""> .




<a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000000e Creation of a Revised Silmarillion</a>
Lindil's Tolkien/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a>,
http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</A>.
'In the begining was the Word. And the Word was with God.And the Word is God'. </p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Moderator
Posts: 60</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

Bob:
&lt;&lt;But please note that the dastardly NOTE refers to the Balrogs in the War of the Powers _where it was inserted_ and to which it particulary applies.&gt;&gt;

Ah. Now I think I understand what you mean. It's a possibility I hadn't considered before. If I understand you correctly, you mean that of the various Maiar demons that served Morgoth, only seven were involved in (and killed in) the War of the Powers. Still, I don't think I can accept this as a correct interpretation of the note; the note says that at most 7 &quot;ever existed&quot;. I suppose a looser interpretation of the note is possible, as we've already gone as far as considering disregarding it entirely.

&lt;&lt;Boldog as far as I know is an Ainu-Orc.
I have heard a suggestion or two that this possible title may be basis as a defintion for lesser Balrogs. The Author himself, while unsure as to if it is a title or name, still classifies it creature-wise as Ainu-Orc(s).&gt;&gt;

Agreed. I don't think we can stretch the Boldog thing as far as some have suggested.

&lt;&lt;So we have the 7 Valaraukar (Maiarin Balrogs) as Balrog lords and other 'Incarnate Balrogs' (as the lesser Balrogs that could form the larger numbers?&gt;&gt;

Here's where I'm still a little confused. Do you mean that the other Balrogs weren't Maiar? Or just that they were less powerful Maiar?

jallanite:
&lt;&lt;But the note exists, and it can be used, and should be if acceptable changes can be made.&gt;&gt;

Agreed. I've gone back and forth on this myself: whether it would be better to use the note without question (it is his latest idea on Balrogs) or to almost disregard it (if he suggested the obviously absurd number 3, how seriously can we take 7?). Overall, however, I think we do have to follow it, if it can be made to work.


The question then is whether it can be made to work. I think the thing to consider here is not the Fall of Gondolin, but the War of the Powers. For after changing the 'host' to '3 or at most 7', JRRT does nothing about them all being killed by Manwe. The problem then is like Myths Transformed on a much smaller scale: can we take up the projected change without engaging in 'fan fiction'? As much as I don't want to have to lose any of the Lost Tales Fall of Gondolin, I think the answer is 'Yes'; we're obbligated to stick with 7.

&lt;&lt;Where does one stop on the slippery slope of making minimal emendations and writing fan fiction? I don't really like reducing the party of Balrogs with bows and slings to one Balrog with a bow, however much I like the effect of the tale that is produced. Should I have made them two, one with bow and one with sling, and then had one slain? That would be more difficult to accomplish. &gt;&gt;

It certainly is a tricky issue. I think we should try to remember that what we are doing is making a canon Silmarillion, not rewriting the Fall of Gondolin. That is, it is the Fall of Gondolin material that must be made to fit the 'true' story, not the other way around. Or to put it another way: we should be using only parts of the Fall of Gondolin that can be readily made to agree with the canon; we are NOT simply revising the Fall of Gondolin.

With these considerations in mind, I think that if it comes to basically writing fan fiction in our attempt to correct the Lost Tales, we should drop the older material entirely.

I don't really like this option (as the Fall of Gondolin is one of my favorite stories) but I do support it.

&lt;&lt;I am by no means bashing all of the work of aiwendill and jallanite and others, just pointing out the dilemna that J is acknowledging as having it's roots in the working principles that allow this much freedom.&gt;&gt;

I don't think the problem is so much with the principles as with our application of them. Rather than fiddling with the late note, and the Lost Tales, and Boldogs and such, I think we should perhaps strictly follow the latest conceptions of Tolkien, and simply drop any old stuff that does not agree. We are under no obbligation to use the Lost Tales material; we shouldn't bend the canon in order to preserve it.

</p>

[Mithadan]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of Mist
Posts: 954</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

No one said this would be easy (or even necessarily possible). Many would agree that the Lost Tales material is too obscure or dated to provide any basis for establishing canon. M. Martinez is one holding this position (he suggests that Lost Tales and even some later material cannot be considered part of the same mythos due to changes in JRRT's intentions such as the departure from the &quot;mythology for England&quot; position). My feeling is that in the absence of any statement of contrary intention or revision by JRRT, some parts of Lost Tales can be deemed to have &quot;survived&quot;. Parts of FoG may fall in this category. But I too hesitate concerning mechanical dragons, 1000s of Balrogs and other such details.

--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>

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 22</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Is there a reason you can't post it directly Bob? lost file or somesuch?<hr></blockquote>

No.
No lost file or somesuch.

I didn't and don't _want_ to participate in this project at any level other than helpful suggestion, although this is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain, much to my dismay.
Thank you very much H.I. [I forgive you anyway].

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Waiting for H-I to post it [or not] is a little bizarre.<hr></blockquote>
I work in Bizarre ways. I leave Mysterious to someone else.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I don't think we can stretch the Boldog thing as far as some have suggested.<hr></blockquote>
I'm not discounting the idea actually, and I think I even stated it was interesting. I had already looked into it, and from what I have seen, it even _sort-of_ fits to a degree---but is not the end-all-beat-all answer to the question.

There is the Mysterious jump from 3 to 7 [leaving the Mysterious number of 4---coincidentally or not, the number of _named_ Maia Orc-Lords].

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Here's where I'm still a little confused. Do you mean that the other Balrogs weren't Maiar? Or just that they were less powerful Maiar?<hr></blockquote>

Both and neither---according to your interpretation of Spirits.

</p>

[HerenIstarion]

Deadnight Chanter
Posts: 1507
many many balrogs

Many Many Balrogs

Originally Posted by Tar Elenion

When (or if?) HerenIstarion gets around to posting what Bob has given him we can see what Bob is implying then (and accept or tear it apart as needed)

I apologise if my absence caused any inconvenience. In several spots here I seem to be summoned to judge delicate matters in which I must confess, I lack great amount of knowledge, Yet, never claiming the role of a jury here, I may submit my own opinion, which, was of course influenced by Bob’s ideas (which were quiet new to me, yet which, nevertheless, are worth listening and worth thinking over), but I can get more or less logical basis under them, I deem, even if some of these may seem mere speculation. Yet, I always had a notion that professor himself worked 50/50, using both his previous materiel (or, a scientifically, “evidence”), as well as intuition in using, reconciling or even rewriting this “evidence”. If the thing “ringed true”, it took place in the Legendarium. Thing certainly rings true (to me)


1) Seven + Many

After such a prologue, I’m still at a loss were to begin . Maybe, I’m even late, for Bob almost answered all the requests. But I still would add my portion into the boiling soup in this pot. Here we have again the passage from Silm77, quoted in this thread several times. I for myself used it in my first post here, yet I must admit my opinion changed since then I will repeat it, highlighting important places (for indeed the passage bears great importance):

Yet so great was the power of his uprising that in ages forgotten he contended with Manwë and all the Valar, and through long years in Arda held dominion over most of the lands of the Earth. But he was not alone. For of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, demons of terror.

It follows, some of the spirits were seduced by Morgoth in the “days of his greatness” – when was this? – the original greatness of Melko was expressed in the Music, when some of 'co-singers' were drawn to his side. It may be assumed (speculation of course, with no textual evidence, but still…), than increasingly discussed 7 “great” Balrogs may have been seduced there.

Here I must take a step aside for a while.

Before Arda we have certain spirits, and, even they differ by their names, I always had a feeling that the order to which the all belong, make them equal in status, if not in rank. (Ëalar)

After creating Arda some of them enter it to be distinguished by their names, yet their nature remains the same – Valar (called so for their power, and being Powers of the World) and Maiar (less powerful, but beautiful, called so for their beauty) yet, both, Valar as well as Maiar, are Ëalar – spirits not embodied, and, au contraire Fëar, spirits incarnate, having hröar (i.e. Children)

But the names Maiar and Valar apply to the function the bearers of them accomplish. The spirits on the other side, being of the same order, yet exercising opposite functions, are defined by adding prefix U before the name of a function of spirits named above. That gives us Umaiar – Not-Maiar, Maiar-doing-opposite-things. For Valar there is only one equal opponent – Morgoth – Black Enemy of The World (having Valar as Powers of the World, it makes more evident the opposition of name of a function) So, we can easily call the 7 “great Balrogs” Umaiar, and that will not in a least break the rule. Or, according to the passage, spirits that remained with him till the days of his fall, spirits able to exercise the same rank of functions as Melkor/Morgoth himself, even if with less intensity.

Then we have “spirits corrupted afterwards”. If we weigh wording carefully, this without trace of a doubt, means “after the days of his greatness”. When are the days of his greatness ended? I will be bold enough to suppose his 'greatness' was 'ending' in two steps - first when he was driven forth by Tulkas, and that stage prolonged till his captivity in the end of the war of Powers, in which his last “host of balrogs“ was destroyed (“the Annals of Aman”) But who are those balrogs (for I don’t think it necessary to omit the great passage of balrogs assailing the standard of Manwe), which are so easily withered in Manwe’s wrath? Spirits corrupted afterwards, and, as elves just awoke, and there is no trace of men yet, we must assume them to be some other ëalar, but of lesser strength and not opposed in function to Maiar, so there is no need to consider them as Umaiar, yet rather than opposite to those spirits which incarnate Eagles, Ents and so on. If I were allowed to use invented term, I would rather call them Ulëalar.

That’s very well, you may think, yet why calling them balrogs at all, than?

Return to the passage once more – “Dreadful among these spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, demons of terror.”

Valaraukar – 'Mighty Demons' (Or 'Demons of Terror') certainly means 7 great ones, yet translation “balrog”, applied to those in ME, is not literal:

ÑGWAL- torment. Q ungwale torture; nwalya- to pain, torment; nwalka cruel. N balch cruel; baul torment, cf. Bal- in Balrog or Bolrog [RUK], and Orc-name Boldog = Orc-warrior ‘Torment-slayer’ (cf. NDAK).

Not only 'mighty', but 'tormenting' spirits. One can apply such a term even to one’s own not so pleasant neighbour, disturbing one’s sleep by night with some naughty noisy behaviour.

That, speculatively, gives us 7 Valaraukar proper, and indefinite number of other Balrogs (tormenting spirits), which are more than orks (not including Ainu orcs, see the definitions here[link lost in the migration to UBB - H-I], but less than 7 great ones and more easily destructible. Them being lesser than Umaiar does not abolish their 'fiery' nature, as opposed to the ëalar of the “good” attitude, such as eagles of Manwe, or some free agents, not directly obeying, yet more or less loyal to Valar (Bombadil, Goldberry (direct opposition – fire/water). Having the same inherent power of Fire as the great Valaraukar, they may easily be confused by the elves (who haven’t seen the thing but yet the whole Silm is the elvish point of view on the history of the world) with the Valaraukar proper. That partly answers the argument of Legolas' and Gandalf's reaction of 'ai, ai, Balrog' scene – for Legolas any fire spirit is balrog, and even if it is not a Valarauko, it is the thing which was before Arda, and therefore beyond the match of any mortal or immortal Child, Gandalf – or, rather, Olorin, is a Maia, and (speculation again, yet why not?) can distinguish what a Balrog “proper” is. Such 'Ulëalar' Balrogs may have been destroyed in the War of Powers, and leave 7 Valaraukar unharmed to have their whole company in action at Gondolin.

Yet I mantioned two falls of Melkor/Morgoth, and must go back to the second fall now. The second fall is much more important for the theory. Now Melkor 'really' falls, and becomes irredeemable, in fact, becomes 'Anti-Vala' only after killing of Trees of Valinor. This is marked with the change of his name from Melkor to Morgoth, and his loss of ability to change his shape. From now on his lust to have others under his will is irresistible, and among the 'other spirits corrupted afterwards' most desirable are Children of Eru. What it has to do with Balrogs? It is mostly concerned with them (and I see it now, thanks to Bob Wehadababyitsaboy:

THE LAY OF THE
CHILDREN OF HURIN

but Bauglir said: 'O bravest of Men,
'tis fate unfitting for thus fellhanded
warrior warfain that to worthless friends
his sword he should sell, who seek no more
to free him from fetters or his fall avenge.
While shrinking in the shadows they shake fearful
in the hungry hills hiding outcast
their league belying, lurking faithless,
he by evil lot in everlasting
dungeons droopeth doomed to torment
and anguish endless. That thy arms unchained
I had fainer far should a falchion keen
or axe with edge eager flaming
wield in warfare where the wind bloweth
the banners of battle -- such a brand as might
in my sounding smithies on the smitten anvil
of glowing steel to glad thy soul
be forged and fashioned, yea, and fair harness
and mail unmatched -- than that marred with flails
my mercy waiving thou shouldst moan enchained
neath the brazen Balrogs' burning scourges:
who art worthy to win reward and honour
as a captain of arms when cloven is mail
and shields are shorn, when they shake the hosts
of their foes like fire in fell onset.
Lo! receive my service; forswear hatred,
ancient enmity thus ill-counselled --
I am a mild master who remembers well
his servants' deeds. A sword of terror
thy hand should hold, and a high lordship
as Bauglir's champion, chief of Balrogs,
to lead o'er the lands my loud armies,
whose royal array I already furnish;
on Turgon the troll (who turned to flight
and left thee alone, now leaguered fast
in waterless wastes and weary mountains)
my wrath to wreak, and on redhanded
robber-Gnomes, rebels, and roaming Elves,
that forlorn witless the Lord of the World

Chief of Balrogs

That offers something to 'mull over', does not it?

I really doubt the Balrogs 'proper' (that is, Valaraukar) would bear a mortal, even that it was Hurin, 'mightiest of Men' as their Lord. More logical it seems to me that this offer meant lordship over some other balrogs (= Tormenting Spirits)

But to draw a parallel of such balrogs with Balrogs proper, they must resemble each other. That is easily explained in the pre-children period – when lesser balrogs are formed by 'fiery ëalar'. After the second fall of Melkor/Morgoth, the ranks of Balrogs are supplied from different origint (Children) I think Bob won't mind if I give a citation from his letter to me

Originally Posted by Bob Wehadababyitsaboy

Is it possible or even probable that Melkor (as a
master of the matter of Arda - where he had placed a significant portion of himself) be able to 'alter' the appearance of 'followers' to the super-soldier
description given of Balrogs (or as you say; a change of his hroa (or body)). All this assumes that Balrogs could be 'found' rather than the automaton ancestry
they sprang from.

That explains why balrogs, presumably destroyed in the war of Powers, are present again in the Siege of Angband, when:

Grey Annals:

But even as the vanguard of Maidros came upon the Orcs, Morgoth loosed his last strength, and Angband was emptied. There came wolves, and wolfriders, and there came Balrogs a thousand, and there came worms and drakes, and Glaurung, Father of Dragons. And the strength and terror of the Great Worm were now grown great indeed, and Elves and Men withered before him; and he came between the hosts of Maidros and Fingon and swept them apart

But Morgoth’s ability to produce new balrogs certainly diminished after a time, as he spent his power.


2) Wings? no Wings?

Would the changing of hröa of new made Balrog end in him acquiring wings? That is a painful question, and a “hardtalk” occurred several times about this topic, which is to much of quoting to repeat. Check it out around the Downs in manyfold threads

3) Theology and Tolkien

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, not being a practising Christian, but what does this have to do with Tolkien? Was your original reference (something about a third of heaven) something to do with the Silmarillion or merely an analogy that went right over my head?

I have a strong notion that one of the aspects of the Tolkien’s work is that, besides other great virtues, it is somehow a retelling of Christian Legend, which Professor himself called 'sub-creation'. That is why I rather picture him as Aulë when the dwarves were offered to Eru, than any other of his characters. Some aspects were discussed and may be checked here[link lost in the migration to UBB - H-I]

Yes, Tolkien disliked allegory, yet he used it, when it was somehow 'direct' allegory (cf Leaf by Niggle – the whole peive is an allegory!

But I deem it’s time to finish – I’m the hell tired of typing.

You have the speculation. You are entitled to 'tear it up' as necessary

[Bob Wehadababyitsaboy]

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

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> In several spots here I seem to be summoned to judge delicate matters<hr></blockquote>
Apologies. We both know what the original intent was, and this wasn't it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I may submit my own opinion, which, was of course influenced by Bob’s ideas<hr></blockquote>
I noticed the alterations. <img src=wink.gif ALT="">

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Maybe, I’m even late, for Bob almost answered all the requests.<hr></blockquote>
Again, not the intent. In the interim, thanks to several devious references by someone---my old identity here was all but written out for everyone to see who understood---which most CERTAINLY was not any intent of mine. For the benefit of the someone who worked so hard to accomplish this revelation:

Yes, I admit it, you can stop now.
I am the person who posted here moons ago under the name _Saulotus_.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> We must assume them to be some other ealar, but of lesser strength and not opposed in function to Maiar, so there is no need to consider them as Umaiar, yet rather than opposite to those spirits which incarnate Eagles, Ents and so on. If I were allowed to use invented term...<hr></blockquote>

I see you're not entirely happy with the Spirits of Elemental Earth [Air, Water, FIRE, and Earth] aka Earthlings [ne--Nermir, Tavari etc.] explanation. No matter. But then I don't recall mentioning Giants, Ogres, Mermaids [from which Goldberry derives---possibly a homage to old Fairy Tales, in much the same I suspect that the word Maia is, as found in the Olive Fairy Book] or any other [fouler and fairer] things older than Sauron.

And Ealar still doesn't equal Ainu. But I think you somewhat accept this in your opinion.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Valaraukar – “Mighty Demons” certainly means 7 great ones, yet translation “balrog”, applied to those in ME, is not literal<hr></blockquote>
You can find more information on this in _Quendi and Eldar_ Author's Note 28 as another readily available place.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> One can apply such a term even to one’s own not so pleasant neighbour, disturbing one’s sleep by night with some naughty noisy behaviour.<hr></blockquote>
Funny you should mention that.
Have you ever been awakened on a _Wednesday!_ night at 3 a.m. to your neighbor's inebriated friends singing _quite_ off-key and honking their car horn in beat to a song with lyrics, which if I remember correctly are: &quot;on the radio ooo-ooo [honk-honk], {something something} on the radio ooo-ooo [Honk-honk]&quot;
I think it was Donna Summer. Donna Summer? If I had to be awakened in such a manner, at least it could have been with a more tasteful song. The theme to 'I dream of Jeanie' would have more tasteful than _that_ was.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> for Legolas any fire spirit is Balrog, and even if it is not a Valarauko, it is the thing which was before Arda<hr></blockquote>

Quite right on Legolas I think.

Befor Adra? Is it?
Arda [or Ea if you prefer] was first in creation... _Then_ the Ainu came to Arda and entered _into_ the story of TIME.
The Ainu are before Creation, but not before Time.

I mentioned a reference to the Tom thread, and it's relevance with Eru sending the Secret Fire into the heart of the world.
Further information on the secret fire is a whole seperate discussion.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I think Bob won't mind if I give a citation from his letter to me<hr></blockquote>
No. I think it's actually just desserts. <img src=wink.gif ALT="">


</p>

[HerenIstarion]

Deadnight Chanter
Posts: 1522

Quite right

The more correct wording would be:

Before awakening of the Children