Dragons and Balrogs

[gorthaur_cruel]

While I am aware that this discussion is nothing new, and has already been brought up several times, the last post on it was on 2002, unless this forum's search function missed out some. While reading those, there were several points that have not been brought up, so I'd like to open up this debate again, if u don't mind

So then, who was the greater evil - dragons or balrogs? I personally lean towards the dragons, and these are my reasons.

First, Dragon-fire could melt and consume the rings of power, but balrog-fire could not, suggesting that dragon fire is more powerful than balrog fire. Why? When Gandalf fought the balrog, Narya is unaffected. Of course, it could be that Gandalf did not have Narya with him at that time, but that seems doubtful. First of all, LotR says that Gandalf now "openly" wore Narya at the Grey Havens. This implies that he had it with him the whole time, just not openly. Second; what's the point of having Narya if he's not going to use it? He's not the lord of some realm like Galadriel or Elrond, but a wanderer. It cannot be put to use unless he has it with him. The only fact that conflicts with this is why Saruman did not take Narya when he held Gandalf captive. It is obvious that he knew about Gandalf and Narya. For that, I have no answer. Perhaps Saruman forgot. Anyway, Gandalf never mentions that balrog-fire is enough to destroy the rings.

Second, Glaurung had balrogs in his train, implying that he was leading them. It seems doubtful as to whether balrogs would follow a weaker creature.

Thirdly, in the War of Wrath, the forces of the Valar had no trouble defeating the balrogs. It is when Morgoth unleashed the winged dragons under Ancalagon that they were held at bay for a while.

Balrogs are definitely maiar, but dragons may be maiar too. We do not know, so in that aspect, I'll give the balrogs the advantage. However, there are numerous cases in which a non-ainu defeats an ainu. Elves have killed balrogs before, Huan defeated Sauron(though Huan is another potential maia), Luthien cast a sleeping spell on Morgoth and there are several other instances, I'm sure. Therefore, just because balrogs are maiar does not make them automatically greater than dragons.

Then we have the argument that it took mightier warriors (Gandalf, Ecthelion, Glorfindel) to kill a balrog. However, we know that Gandalf the Grey is considerably less powerful than Gandalf the White, who was responsible for much of Gandalf's war aspects. Gandalf was defeated in The Hobbit by a few wargs, and was about to commit suicide, taking several wolves with him to death. That same Gandalf the Grey defeated a balrog, so it stands to reason that a bunch of wargs are enough to take down a balrog. However, we know that Glaurung has almost single handedly destroyed armies that would've defeated those wolves. Also, Ecthelion and Glorfindel are not necessarily greater warriors than Turin and Earendil (OK, fine. They're better than Bard and Fram ). Earendil, by that time, is holy, and IMO, more than a match against any maia. Just the light of Earendil scares Shelob and breaks the will of the Silent Watchers. Turin is possibly the greatest warrior of all time. He is much more powerful, IMO, then either Glorfindel or Ecthelion. Why? First, he's the son of Hurin, another potential "greatest warrior". However, my main reason is this: while HoME is not exactly canon, if it does not conflict with canon books, I believe that it must be taken into account. In Dagor Dagorath, the Last Battle in which Arda is destroyed, Morgoth returns, and so does Turin. It is Turin who deals Morgoth the death stroke once and for all.

The dragon-spell suggests that dragons are capable of the "spiritual" sort of fighting that many people use to make balrogs seem better. Also, dragons are very clever and capable of speech. It is not said whether any balrog has either of these qualities.

Both dragons are balrogs are capable of using fire, so it seems likely that fire does not affect either of these creatures. Thus, we must look to the other weapons that they possess. Dragons can use their teeth, claws, tails, and size. Balrogs, however, have a whip of flames, a mane of fire, and...a sword like a stabbing tongue of fire. The only non-fiery weapon a balrog is seen to possess is Gothmog's black axe.

Now, I'd like to hear some arguments

[Son of Númenor]

Looking at which of these creatures was the 'greater evil' (which to my mind means which was more physically/sorcerously powerful), I am inclined to go with dragons, although I am by no means positive.

I do not think that Narya's not being destroyed by the Balrog of Moria is any real indication that Balrog-fire is less 'powerful' than Dragon-fire, since, as you said, Gandalf may not have even had the Ring with him, & he also may not have been directly hit with any huge blasts of Balrog-fire. I think a better indication of the superiority in power of Dragon-fire is Gandalf's saying in "The Shadow of the Past" that:

It has been said that dragon-fire could melt and consume the Rings Of Power, but there is not now any dragon left on earth in which the old fire is hot enough; nor was there any dragon, not even Ancalagon the Black, who could have harmed the One Ring, the Ruling Ring...

while failing to mention anything about the destructive capabilities of Balrog-fire.

As you have already established, there were Balrogs marching in the host of Glaurung, a possible indication of their inferiority. While one might make the argument that the Balrog of Moria in The Lord of the Rings seemed more powerful than Smaug in The Hobbit, this seems mostly attributable to the fact that J.R.R. Tolkien did not intend for Smaug to be considered among the dragons of the First Age like Ancalagon & Glaurung, as the characters & events of The Hobbit were initially intended to be no more canonical to the history of Middle-earth than the dragon Crysophylax in Farmer Giles of Ham or the land of Faery in Smith of Wooton Major.

...dragons are very clever and capable of speech. It is not said whether any balrog has either of these qualities.

Very true. What made Glaurung so powerful was not only his brute strength & his ability to breathe fire, but also his mastery of hypnotism and persuasion. There is reason to believe that dragons were more powerful than Balrogs because of the Silmarillion description of Glaurung's ability to hypnotize ('dragon-spell') &, to a high degree, control the minds of his victims as he saw fit. Smaug also shows a similar (though certainly lesser) mastery of psychological persuasion. Although one could make the argument that the Moria Balrog's spell-casting battle with Gandalf demonstrated a high level of (for lack of a better word) metaphysical ability, the Balrog's spells did not seem to hold anywhere near the same force as Glaurung's.

The awesome power of the dragons (or perhaps I should say 'some/many of the dragons') is exemplified in the emergence of Ancalagon & the winged dragons in the War of Wrath, described thusly in The Silmarillion:

...so sudden and so ruinous was the onset of that dreadful fleet that the host of the Valar were driven back, for the coming of the dragons was with great thunder, and lightning, and a tempest of fire.

Never is anywhere near the same level of power ascribed to the hosts of Balrogs in The Silm, nor can it ever be inferred from other descriptions of Balrogs in battle that Balrogs could come anywhere close to driving back the host of the Valar the way the winged dragons did. The Balrog of Moria could not even dispatch one Maia, a Maia whose power was extremely restricted at the time of the battle.

Balrogs are definitely maiar, but dragons may be maiar too

While some of the Balrogs definitely are Maiar, it seems at least somewhat debatable as to whether all the creatures that took a 'balrog' form in the First Age were Ainur in origin. In the One hand tied behind their backs thread, Heren-Istarion offers up the notion that some balrogs (as opposed to Balrogs) that marched into battle may have been:

1. altered hroar of orks.
2. altered hroar of Eruhini (Children of Ilúvatar)

as well as Maiar spirits initially corrupted to the service of Melkor.

That last part didn't really have anything to do with the 'greater evil' debate, just thought I'd throw it in there because I found it interesting, and because it relates to part of your post.

Unless some solid claim can be found to support the idea that Balrogs were stronger than dragons in Middle-earth, I am inclined to believe based on evidence from a variety of Tolkien's works that dragons were the mightier of the two.

-Númenor

[Maverick]

I definately have to go with Balrogs. We know Balrogs were maiar. Dragons could have been Maiar since Tolkien wrote that other maiar were also corrupted by Melkor.

Gorthaur_cruel said that he thought balrogs were weaker because the same gandalf that defeated a Balrog was also almost killed be a few wargs in "The Hobbit" At that point in Tolkien's writing he hadn't written anything on Valar and Maiar. At that point I think Gandalf was portrayed as just a wizard. If Tolkien had written him as a maiar he could have easily killed a few wargs.

Tolkien's view of alot of things changed through out his writting. In his earlier writing Balrogs were not maiar. And there were alot of them. There were times when Tolkien said that Morgoth sent a host of Balrogs. In his earlier writing there were many Balrogs. Dragons were probably more powerful then. But later his view of Balrogs changed and Tolkien said that there were never more than 7 Balrogs and that they were maiar and alot stronger. That also explains how Glaurung had balrogs in his train.

Since there were so few Balrogs it explains why the Valar were driven back when the Dragons came. There were alot more Dragons so if they all came at the same time it would have been hard for the Valar since they were greatly out numbered. If there were only 7 Balrogs they wouldn't have been much trouble for the Valar. And because the Valar didn't have to fight all of them because Glorfindel and Ecthelion also slew one each. Gandalf killed one later so the Valar only killed about 3 or 4. Because the Dragons are also very powerful the Valar would have had more trouble then because there were so many more Dragons.

Another reason I think Balrogs are stonger is because Tolkien wrote that the elves feared the Balrog of moria greater than anyone but he who sits in the Dark tower. (Sauron)

In the Silmarillion Tolkien says that other than Sauron, Gothmog was Melkor's strongest slave (for lack of a better word)

I think that Balrogs are definatley stronger, but I would like to here more reasons from either side of this debate.

[Son of Númenor]

Another reason I think Balrogs are stonger is because Tolkien wrote that the elves feared the Balrog of moria greater than anyone but he who sits in the Dark tower. (Sauron)

Well, there were no dragons for them to fear after Smaug died.

In the Silmarillion Tolkien says that other than Sauron, Gothmog was Melkor's strongest slave (for lack of a better word)

Can you provide a quote for this? It may be right, & I haven't got the Silm with me to verify or disprove, but I think I remember Glaurung being described as Morgoth's greatest servant besides Sauron.

[Firefoot]

It seems to me that the question at hand is not which is more evil, but which is more powerful. I would say that they are equally evil: both were mighty and committed servants of Morgoth and had virtually the same causes. But I am inclined to agree that Dragons are more powerful than Balrogs, for reasons already posted.

At that point in Tolkien's writing he hadn't written anything on Valar and Maiar.

Actually he had. There are several drafts of stories written concerning Valar and Maiar, which are recorded in HoME. It is true that in The Hobbit Gandalf is not portrayed as the strong Maiar in LotR and other writings, but I don't know that he was "just a wizard." I'm thinking Tolkien had at least some ideas of how the Wizards/Maiar thing would work out.

If Tolkien had written him as a maiar he could have easily killed a few wargs.

And in doing so he would disobey the his orders not to use his full powers, which he ended up doing in destroying the Balrog anyway. It would probably take quite a few Wargs to defeat a Balrog, especially considering they are afraid of fire.

Tolkien said that there were never more than 7 Balrogs and that they were maiar and alot stronger.

Can you give a quote for this? I have looked all over the Silmarillion for a reference for this and everywhere they are mentioned there seem to be quite a few of them. For example, at the War of Wrath, "The Balrogs were destroyed, save some few that fled and hid themselves in caversn inaccessible at the roots of the earth." This is also after Ecthelion and Glorfindel have killed their Balrogs, and I think it would also be safe to say that at least a few more were killed in the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, Dagor Bragollach, or the Fall of Gondolin. If there were only 7, at least two of them dead, there were only 5 at the War of Wrath, and only a few survived. That doesn't make sense with the wording "The Balrogs were destroyed, save some few." That sounds more like a great many Balrogs were slain, and maybe two or three survived, one of those being of course the Balrog of Moria.

Another reason I think Balrogs are stonger is because Tolkien wrote that the elves feared the Balrog of moria greater than anyone but he who sits in the Dark tower.

However, at this time there were also no great dragons left. Smaug had been killed some 80 years earlier. Smaug was the last great dragon, and compared to Ancalagon or Glaurung, Smaug wasn't even all that mighty.

In specific instances, killing a Balrog or Dragon is a pretty big thing, and was only accomplished by Túrin, Ecthelion, Glorfindel, Gandalf, Eärendil as a 'holy' being, and the Valar in the War of Wrath, and Ecthelion, Glorfindel, and Gandalf all died doing so. And Bard, but only because of Smaug's weak spot and a lucky chance.

But I would say that what makes the Dragons ultimately more powerful is their ability to speak and reason which Balrogs are not recorded as having. Also Dragons can put spells on people. This is probably why Glaurung was at the head of the Balrogs: a smart Dragon would make a much better commander than a Balrog. And the Dragons were quite smart and clever.

Is the question which creature is more evil, or which is more powerful? If it's which is more powerful, I would say that Dragons are, of course. Dragons had the power to destroy whole cities, and the only way Dragons are killed is-Bard with a lucky shot, or coming up from underneath and stabbing them (with the sharpest sword ever I might add lol). Just think of it like this.. You pit a Dragon against a Balrog, c'mon, be honest... who do you think would win? The Dragon could probably eat the Balrog, lol. The Balrog probably couldn't even peirce the Dragon's skin.

[Maverick]

The quote about there being no more than 7 Balrogs is not in the Silmarillion. It is in "Morgoth's Ring." Chapter 2, The Annals of Aman. Christopher Tolkien says in that chapter that his father wrote that there were never more than 7 Balrogs.

I'll try to find the quote about Gothmog being Morgoth's most powerful servant next to Sauron.

[Boromir88]

gorthaur,
You stated "gandalf <openly> wore the ring at the grey havens."
For a little explanation you can come up with the assumption that the 3 elven rings were invisible when worn by their master. In the "Mirror of Galadriel," Sam does not see Gandalf's ring but Frodo does (will get to that later). Elrond and Gandalf used the power of their rings many times but no one ever saw the rings on them. When the one ring was destroyed the 3 rings lost their power which would make them visible again. So that's what I've come to about the "openly." For an explanation on Frodo, he had the one ring, which would explain him seeing the ring and Sam not. It never comes out and says "the 3 rings are invisible when worn on the hands of their masters." From what I have explained we can only assume that. When the one was destroyed the 3 lost power making them visible, I believe that is the only time where it talks about the rings being "visible" or "seen."

To get back on the subject, most everyone has stated someting about their opinion on dragons or balrogs. No sense in repeating, form what's been brought up it's quite clear dragons were the superior "evil."

I must say that even saying that the elves feared the balrog of moria more then anything accept he who sits in the dark tower (proably misquoted) the balrog was a formitable foe weither or not they were stronger then dragons. Plus Smaug was killed before the war of the ring. On another note, I just have to say that I am glad to be back on after the long absence because i lost my pass and changed my e-mail account (my old account was Steve, what a fine hobbit name that was)

[Morsul the Dark]

I believe Bal Rogs were the greater evil and for only one reason Dragons have been more powerful, however Balrogs were far more active where as you could most likely live beneath a dragons lair and not know it especially smaug

[NightKnight]

I don't think dragons were that evil, just very egoistic. Just take a look at Glaurung. He took Nargothrond and the entire treasure for himself. Same with Smaug. Sure, they might have been evil too, but the balrogs tortured elves and men in Angband.

Thus, we must look to the other weapons that they possess. Dragons can use their teeth, claws, tails, and size. Balrogs, however, have a whip of flames, a mane of fire, and...a sword like a stabbing tongue of fire. The only non-fiery weapon a balrog is seen to possess is Gothmog's black axe.

Balrogs had steel claws. But I think the dragons main weapon was their intelligence. Some balrogs might have been intelligent too (Gothmog was the commander of Morgoth's army in the Fall of Gondolin), but I think dragons were generally more intelligent. Therefore they could cast the "dragonspell".

[drigel]

Balrogs more powerfull. Lets say that there is no debate on dragons actually being Maia spirits. If this is the case, then in my mind, *if dragons were Maia spirits*, then they were trapped (by Morgoth) in serpents bodies. To me, this signifies a significant lower class of Maia spirit than a Balrogs.

I would characterize Balrogs as *more evil*, because they are a "purer" form of evil - being the original manifistation representative of the flaming evil spirit that arose at the dawn of Maia existence. Dragons (IMO) may show more "evilness" at certain times because they are definately more independant minded than Balrogs are. But the "who is more powerfull\evil" debate by the 3rd age would definatelly be the Balrog, since any dragon by that time would be a 3rd, 4th, 5th generation of breed. This is assuming that there is some kind of watering down effect on the original Maia spirits that occurs over subsequent generations.

[Maverick]

I can't find where it says Gothmog is next to sauron, I know it's not in the Silmarillion, though. The Enclyclopedia of Arda says that he is if you type in "Gothmog"

I did find in the Silmarillion where it says that Gothmog was the High Captain of Angband. That's saying somethin for Balrogs.

[gorthaur_cruel]

Sorry...by "greater evil", I meant the "evil being who is greater", not more evil.

Gorthaur_cruel said that he thought balrogs were weaker because the same gandalf that defeated a Balrog was also almost killed be a few wargs in "The Hobbit" At that point in Tolkien's writing he hadn't written anything on Valar and Maiar. At that point I think Gandalf was portrayed as just a wizard. If Tolkien had written him as a maiar he could have easily killed a few wargs.

Actually, he had written about the Valar and the Maiar, as well as balrogs and dragons before he wrote the hobbit. It was called "The Book of Lost Tales". Even if he hadn't, "The Hobbit" is viewed as canon, at least by most people. Even if Tolkien hadn't thought about maiar back then, what he wrote there must certainly be regarded as "true", as he had published it.

Tolkien's view of alot of things changed through out his writting. In his earlier writing Balrogs were not maiar. And there were alot of them. There were times when Tolkien said that Morgoth sent a host of Balrogs. In his earlier writing there were many Balrogs. Dragons were probably more powerful then. But later his view of Balrogs changed and Tolkien said that there were never more than 7 Balrogs and that they were maiar and alot stronger. That also explains how Glaurung had balrogs in his train.

Since there were so few Balrogs it explains why the Valar were driven back when the Dragons came. There were alot more Dragons so if they all came at the same time it would have been hard for the Valar since they were greatly out numbered. If there were only 7 Balrogs they wouldn't have been much trouble for the Valar. And because the Valar didn't have to fight all of them because Glorfindel and Ecthelion also slew one each. Gandalf killed one later so the Valar only killed about 3 or 4. Because the Dragons are also very powerful the Valar would have had more trouble then because there were so many more Dragons.[/quote]

Tolkien's view of Balrogs changed, true, but just because there were more dragons than balrogs doesn't mean they're weaker. It never really says how many winged dragons there were, anyway. Also, it specifically says that the Balrogs "were of no avail" against the forces of the Valar.

Oh, and slightly OT, the Valar never participated in the War of Wrath, IMO. Their leader was a maia, and it is constantly referred to as the "Forces of the Valar", and never "the Valar". It was comprised of Elves+Maiar, without any Valar.

Balrogs more powerfull. Lets say that there is no debate on dragons actually being Maia spirits. If this is the case, then in my mind, *if dragons were Maia spirits*, then they were trapped (by Morgoth) in serpents bodies. To me, this signifies a significant lower class of Maia spirit than a Balrogs.

Like I said, non-Maiar are somtimes more powerful than Maiar. I believe that dragons were created in more or less the same way as Carcharoth. Carcharoth was a wolf that Morgoth put his power into, and it grew strong. It killed Huan (and got killed himself in the process, but my point still stands), who had defeated Sauron, the greatest maia of Morgoth. Thus, Carcharoth, a non-Maia, is more powerful than Sauron. You could argue that only by a wolf could Huan be slain, but that is only a prophecy. It does not mean that Huan is more powerful than anything other than a wolf, and Sauron had turned himself into a wolf anyway.

[Voralphion]

Oh, and slightly OT, the Valar never participated in the War of Wrath, IMO. Their leader was a maia, and it is constantly referred to as the "Forces of the Valar", and never "the Valar". It was comprised of Elves+Maiar, without any Valar

Actually, Tulkas, Aule participated in the war of the wrath. It was Tulkas who wrestled with Morgoth, and Aule who bound him with the chain. Also there is probably a good chance that Orome also participated in it, as I don't think the huntsman of the Valar would want to be left out of such a battle against the forces of Morgoth.

[gorthaur_cruel]

You're confusing that with the other battle the Valar made against Morgoth, right after the Elves awoke in Cuivienen. There, Tulkas wrestled with Morgoth, and bound him with Angainor, the chain of Aule. The War of Wrath is the battle that took place after Earendil sailed to Valinor.

Source? The silmarillion.

Of the Coming of the Elves, Chapter 3 of the Silmarillion

But at last the gates of Utumno were broken and the halls unroofed, and Melkor took refuge in the uttermost pit. Then Tulkas stood forth as champion of the Valar and wrestled with him, and cast him upon his face; and he was bound with the chain Angainor that Aule had wrought, and led captive; and the world had peace for a long time

OTOH, the War of Wrath never directly mentions the Valar.

[The Saucepan Man]

Gandalf was defeated in The Hobbit by a few wargs, and was about to commit suicide, taking several wolves with him to death. That same Gandalf the Grey defeated a balrog, so it stands to reason that a bunch of wargs are enough to take down a balrog.

Carcharoth was a wolf that Morgoth put his power into, and it grew strong. It killed Huan (and got killed himself in the process, but my point still stands), who had defeated Sauron, the greatest maia of Morgoth. Thus, Carcharoth, a non-Maia, is more powerful than Sauron.

Where one being kills or defeats another, it does not necessarily follow that the victorious being is more powerful than the defeated being. If that were the case, it would follow that Bard was more powerful than Smaug, Eowyn and Merry (combined) were more powerful than the Witch King and Pippin was more powerful than the Great Troll Chief at the Black Gate. Much depends on the circumstances, which can allow a weaker being to defeat a stronger one.

[drigel]

Gorthaur,

You bring up some good points! I think that you have a strong argument if you consider 1st generation dragons only. And if the consideration were of the Balrogs as the kind originally drafted (see above - balrog vs Balrog). In my first post I had the "2nd draft" Balrog in mind. Mabye 4-6 in total. Original Maia's who were spirits of flame.

I would like to see some canon as to the original dragons were actually "hand reared" by Morgoth as he did for Carcharoth, or were they
(A) trapped spirits inhabiting an already existing species of flying lizard ,
(B) or, what i think is: The already existing flying lizard species (mabye some already advanced to the point of speach and cunning minds) were taken and corrupted by M, to the point - like orcs - where each subsequent generation is as evil as the prior.

SPM has great points too so lets just break down the attributes of each like has done before. The battle Gorthaur references could be viewed, as set in a contex that a nonMaia actually beats a maia, is technically correct if one was keeping score, but Huan didnt kill Sauron. He did have him in what would be called a hard check.. lol But wasnt Sauron in the form of a vampire>? No books at work... sigh
Are there any other examples?

The only advantage i see a dragon has over a Balrog is:
flight (but again the debate still rages on that lol),
and, at least for the major dragons, the cunning mind.

That may be all they needed to win if one were to put those 2 together in a collosium... or mabye not - if environmental factors were taken away, and its just mano e mano - i would still lay down the ducks for the Balrog winning on brute evil strength.

One more point on the subject. In The Silmarillion, it happens to mention that, of all the creatures of evil, it was only dragons that Sauron could not control. Hell, that sounds like dragons are pretty damn powerful to me. And if he himself could not control them, there is some allusion to the possibility that they were immune to the insinuations of the Ruling Ring, which is most definately saying something.
Of course, since dragons have that bit of magpie urge of theirs, they might have taken it anyway if they'd found it.
Another thing, I wonder- could dragons pick and choose their alligiences? In one of the Lost Tales, Farmer Giles of Ham, the green dragon Chrysophylax becomes friends with a mere, rather puny, human farmer (or as much of a friend as a dragon could make himself), and, in outlining for future stories (which were never written) mentions this green dragon protecting and even rescuing him, which are qualities one would assign to more benevolent creatures.
In the words of a friend, following this question:
"Well, some are better or worse than others."
Makes you think....

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I know the topic is specifically about who was greater, but its still interesting to talk about who was more evil.

The point that Sauron was not able to completely control the Dragons suggests that they were more independent than the Balrogs with regards to their choices. Now, if the Balrog is completely under the sway of Morgoth or Sauron, can it be considered liable for its actions? I would say no, the Balrog has no choice but to act according to Morgoth/Sauron's will.

Dragons though, being more independent, seem to have greater responsibility. They seem to choose to be evil in a far more obvious way than Balrogs do.

Now, this can be concluded in two contrary ways, depending on your definition of evil. Balrogs can be considered slaves to evil, and thus less evil than the Dragons who choose evil. But conversely, Dragons can be considered flawed (extremely flawed!) beings who retain the chance of doing good. Balrogs can never do this and thus are more evil.

Which one?