Gothmogs and dragons and noobs, oh my

[ninja91]

I will throw this thread here, because they are noob questions.
1. Gothmog is the lieutenant of the Morgul-Host. He is pretty powerful. But what in the heck is he? I cant find anything that describes him in the books. I doubt he is an orc. And even in the movies, he is different from the rest of the orcs, because they knew that Gothmog was somehow different than the other soldiers of Minas Morgul.

2. One more, where in the heck did the dragons come from? Where they created by good or evil, and either way, what was their purpose?

Thanks for the time,

Your favorite Ninja/Drow

[mormegil]

There are really no clear answers on who Gothmog is. Is he Nazgul, Man, or Orc? We don't know and generally we have our own beliefs but there is no factual evidence unequivocally demonstrating to which race he belongs. I personally feel he is Nazgul as the W-K is the captain it would make sense that Gothmog is the Lieutenant. However we do know that Sauron employeed at least one man in a position of power and prominence, the Mouth of Sauron is a Black Numenorean.

I believe I will start a poll in this matter though.

[ninja91]

Well, if he was a Nazgul, then there would have had to be an ancient king named Gothmog, and I am not saying you are wrong, but I dont think that there was one.

[littlemanpoet]

Morgoth devised the dragons. They were made evil. Their purpose was to overcome the power of the First Age Elves and Dwarves.

[ninja91]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Morgoth devised the dragons. They were made evil. Their purpose was to overcome the power of the First Age Elves and Dwarves.

Did they accomplish their task, though, or were they a failure at life?

[Elmo]

Well considering that the Elven armies were practically annihilated in Beleriand I guess they did a pretty good job, but most of them were wiped out in the War of Wrath

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Morgoth devised the dragons. They were made evil.

This always made me wonder. I mean, it is said that evil cannot create, just corrupt or imitate. How could Melkor make dragons then, and from what? Balrogs are corrupted Maiar, werewolves are animals in which some sort of spirit was put (what these spirits are and where they came from is a question as well), orcs are, in each of the ways which Tolkien pondered, corrupted beings. Only the dragons stand out.

How could Morgoth devise dragons?

[Elmo]

He corrupted lizards in a big way?

[The Might]

Indeed, he corrupted an already existing race of dragon-like creatures.
I could personally imagine this corruption as similar to what Sauron did with the winged beasts during the Third Age:

"A creature of an older world maybe it was, whose kind, lingering in forgotten mountains cold beneath the Moon, outstayed their day, and in a hideous eyrie bred this last untimely brood, apt to evil. And the Dark Lord took it and nursed it with fell meats, until it grew beyond the measure of all other things that fly; and he gave it to his servant to be his steed." ~LOTR

Perhaps this pre-existing race Melkor used to devise dragons wasn't in any way as strong or powerful as the dragons themselves, but by using his power he might have been able to "update" them.

However, as far as details on this race are concerned I can only speculate. For example in the Hobbit, Bilbo makes this affirmation:

"Tell me what you want done, and I will try it, if I have to walk from here to the East of East and fight the wild Were-worms in the Desert"

Now, considering the reputation of Hobbits as far as such things are concerned, I tend to doubt that Bilbo actually knew what he was talking about, but there might be some hidden truth here as well.
The Last Desert was thought as a dry, desert region in the Far East of Middle-earth. To me it seems a likely possibility that Melkor used such a race to devise the dragons. But as I said, I am not implying that this theory is right, just trying to give an example of a possible race.

And now to the Gothmog question.
I very much doubt he was an Orc, since as already said there clearly was a big difference in status and authority between him and the other Orcs, as already mentioned above, leading me to believe he was of another race.

But I also very much doubt he was a Nazgul. The namelessness of the Nazgul is one of the key characteristics of the Nine. The fact that their true identities and names were forgotten seems pretty obvious. (except the strange example of Khamul, and I still can not fully understand why Tolkien chose to name him)

This leaves me with the most obvious choice - he was also a Black Numenorean. If, as already said, they were capable of reaching such high ranks and gain so much power, I see no reason why Gothmog wouldn't have been one as well.

[Rumil]

Just a quick note,

Gothmog was the name of the head Balrog of Morgoth during the First Age. It seems that the Third Age character was named after this Balrog, much as Sauron's battering ram, Grond, was named after Morgoth's mace.

Sadly the 3rd Age Gothmog remains a mystery!

[Boromir88]

With Gothmog, nothing is known for sure, anyone's guess is as good as the next. Afterall he only gets this one sentence in The Lord of the Rings:

He now was destroyed; but Gothmog the lieutenant of Morgul had flung them into the fray; Easterlings with axes, and Variags of Khand, Southrons in scarlet, and out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues.~The Battle of Pelennor Fields

I've always felt this ruled out the 'orc' possibility. Because if you notice Gothmog is commanding a group entirely composed of Men. Sauron (nor Saruman for that matter) seem like people who would put Orcs in high positions when it comes to their hierarchy. Saruman didn't trust Orcs as gatekeepers...so he used Men. And the highest/most trusted servants of Sauron's were the Nazgul (once Men) and the Mouth of Sauron. Therefor, Gothmog most likely seems he would be a man (or once a man - a Nazgul).

The reason I don't think Gothmog was a Nazgul, I think TM has put it the best way. The Nazgul's lack of identity is a symbolic matter. Tolkien plays with this idea of the importance of 'names.' If you have a name, you have an identity, you have this sense of self and free will. If you have no name (or forget your name entirely) than there is no identity, you are completely controlled/have no free will. Prime example being the Nazgul, being slaves to Sauron...they lost names and their identity. Let's take Gollum...his name was Smeagol, however people soon labelled him Gollum because of the noises he made. He loses touch with Smeagol and becomes Gollum (as he becomes controlled by the Ring).

As far as Tolkien calling one of his Nazgul 'Khamul.' There are a thing to consider. 'Khamul' was only mentioned in Unfinished Tales, no where else (and probably the important one - The Lord of the Rings) does the name 'Khamul' for one of the Nazgul show up.

One quick comment here for Ninja:

Well, if he was a Nazgul, then there would have had to be an ancient king named Gothmog

The whole thing of the Nazgul being 'Kings of Men' was entirely made by the movies. In The Silmarillion we are told that 3 were 'Numenorean Lords' and that after they received their rings they became 'great kings, warriors, and sorcerers.' As far as the 9 Nazgul being 9 Kings of Men, that was something from the movies.

[The Might]

Yes, his name is only mentioned in the Unfinished Tales, and as seen in other cases some of the information mentioned in the book is not to be taken as true.
I personally could see another similarity between the 1st Age and 3rd Age Gothmog.
The first one of the most important servants of Melkor, the second of Sauron.
I would speculate that it was Sauron that gave him this name as a symbol of his power and importance, mirroring the First Age character.

[Legolas]

I've always thought that he was a man (similar to the Mouth of Sauron) or an orc.

The former is my real guess. As mentioned previously, it seems likely that an orc is not of such status or in charge of a human army.

The fact that Gothmog is not referred to as a Nazgul is enough for me to decide that he is not.

[Elmo]

Back to dragons, if they were made from some type of animal, how did Melkor manage to make them sentient?

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Legolas

I've always thought that he was a man (similar to the Mouth of Sauron) or an orc.

The former is my real guess. As mentioned previously, it seems likely that an orc is not of such status or in charge of a human army.

The fact that Gothmog is not referred to as a Nazgul is enough for me to decide that he is not.

Lieutenant of Mordor, maybe, or Lieutenant of Gorgoroth. But not Lieutenant of Morgul! Morgul was Nazgul central: in my opinion, the title alone of this commander is explicit enough of his identity. Additionally, if the Nazgul were Sauron's greatest servants, what kind of man or orc might supersede another Nazgul when replacing the Witch-King as field commander? Unless someone knows that the rest of the Nazgul were taking it easy somewhere other than Pelennor, I can't see any support for the argument that Gothmog was someone other than Sauron's second most fearsome lieutenant, just under the Witch-King.

Legolas will say, "If Gothmog was a Nazgul, Tolkien would have said so!" I know, because I've had the discussion with him before. But I believe "Lieutenant of Morgul" is just another way of saying exactly that.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

Back to dragons, if they were made from some type of animal, how did Melkor manage to make them sentient?

I don't think making them sentient is the greatest problem. He could have done it like he did with the werewolves, though that procedure is strange in itself. The more interesting question to me is: how was he able to make them so powerful? You could argue that they were more powerful than Balrogs (Maiar!). That's a lot of power to be put in a lizard, though I have to concede that it would need as much power if he devised them from scratch.

Originally Posted by The Might

I could personally imagine this corruption as similar to what Sauron did with the winged beasts during the Third Age:

But Sauron's beasts are dwarved by Melkor's dragons. Even if we take into account that Melkor was more powerful and probably more skilled at corrupting beasts, and even if we assume that pre-dragons were already stronger than pre-winged-beasts, I don't think this fits.

I never thought of the Were-worms. A nice idea, I admit, but the fact that they're mentioned nowhere but in the Hobbit makes it improbable. And the prefix 'were' suggests that they were strongly influenced by Melkor already. But maybe they had a common ancestor.


PS: I also enqueue in the 'Gothmog was a man'-camp, like in the old poll.

[Boromir88]

Hate to bust in here, but just one little thing:

The more interesting question to me is: how was he able to make them so powerful? You could argue that they were more powerful than Balrogs (Maiar!).

Actually, that can't be made . In Tolkien's earliest conception of the Balrogs (BoLT), they were an entire race of their own, and he talks about 'armies' of Balrogs. And even in BoLT it's remarked that the Dragons were Melkor's deadliest servants, save the Balrogs. (If I remember correctly in BoLT Tolkien even played with the idea of Balrogs riding upon Dragons). Tolkien would later greatly change his thoughts about Balrogs, making them Maiar, more powerful, and setting the number of Balrogs that existed from 3 to 7. Dragons stayed relatively the same, so I don't think any case can be made for a dragon being more powerful than a Balrog.

Dragons seemed to be more effective and do more damage, probably because there were hundreds upon hundreds of them; where by Tolkien's latest thoughts only 7 Balrogs ever existed at the most (HoMe X: Morgoth's Ring).

[Mithalwen]

Maybe as with dragons there were winged and unwinged types of balrog......

[Macalaure]

As I said, one could argue.

I had the Bragollach in mind, where it is said that orcs and balrogs were in Glaurung's host, which I would interpret as 'under his command'.

[Elmo]

Back to Boromir88's point, remember warriors seemed to be killing dragons all over the shop, yet the only people who ever killed Balrogs were very powerful beings who also killed themselves in the process.

[Macalaure]

Well, Dragons have an obvious shortcoming. In a one-on-one combat, Balrogs are extremely difficult to get rid of, whereas Dragons have their common weak spot. When faced with a higher power, during the War of Wrath, the Balrogs were swept away easily, while the Dragons caused problems. Also, I believe there were Dragons of very different 'levels', and Scatha and Smaug don't seem to me as being top notch. Ancalogon and Glaurung, however, look like they were at least close to the ranks of the Balrogs.

Anyway, no matter how powerful Dragons were exactly, they were quite a force in both fighting and cunning. I will happily concede that Balrogs are much better if somebody explains me how Melkor was able to create this force.

[Boromir88]

Mac, aye, but Gothmog was the High-Captain of Angband; which in the heirarchy of things puts him right up there with Sauron and at the head of Morgoth's troops. I did dig up what I was looking for from BoLT:

"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."~BoLT II: Turumbar and Foaloke

Again, this being an early conception of Balrogs, where there were thousands and even Tuor kills 8 of 'em in Gondolin.

Mith isn't there a Balrog wing debate some where else? What are you trying to do here?

[Mithalwen]

Stirring of course and what do you mean "even Tuor" as if he were useless as a warrior....?

[Boromir88]

I mean no disrespect to Tuor, but just showing how powerful Balrogs became later in Tolkien's writing, I highly doubt a single man could have killed one...let alone 8 of them. So the 'even' is for the fact that Tuor was a man, and in the earliest drafts a man killed 8 Balrogs, yet Balrogs were still more powerful than dragons. When Tolkien started changing his balrogs and made them Maiar, I would 'bet the farm' that a man could not have killed one, let alone 8.

[Mithalwen]

Point taken but if any man could maybe it would be Tuor? .... I mean he wasn't an average joe was he? Sent by Ulmo, found worthy of Idril not only by that wise, brave and beautiful princess but by her father (who one suspects was not easily impressed), father of Earendil who slew Ancalagon..... I wouldn't bet the whole farm

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I don't think making them sentient is the greatest problem.

I disagree; only Eru has that power.

Originally Posted by Orcs, Myths Transformed, HoME X

As the case of Aule and the Dwarves shows, only Eru could make creatures with independent wills, and with reasoning powers.

Originally Posted by Of Aule and Yavanna, Silmarillion

- Why hast thou done this? Why dost thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and thy authority? For thou hast from me as a gift thy own bring only, and no more; and therefore the creatures of thy hand and mind can live only by that being, moving when thou thinkest to move them, and if thy thought be elsewhere, standing idle. Is that thy desire?

Originally Posted by Letter #212

The One rebuked Aule, saying that he had tried to usurp the Creator's power; but he could not give independent life to his makings. He had only one life, his own derived from the One, and could at most only distribute it. 'Behold' said the One: 'these creatures of thine have only thy will, and thy movement. Though you have devised a language for them, they can only report to thee thine own thought. This is a mockery of me.'

[obloquy]

I just love it when people support their opinions with copious quotes from the books! Nice post, Raynor.

[Macalaure]

I disagree; only Eru has that power.

Of course Melkor could not have created a sentient being. What he could have done is, like he did with werewolves, 'put' a spirit into their bodies, and thus make them sentient. Where Melkor took those spirits from is something I'm asking myself as well.

I just noted the possibility. I don't think this is very likely.

I've been pondering to put a 'How did Melkor make dragons' thread up some time ago, but thought it would be a stupid question. Maybe it wasn't so stupid after all - if nobody of you knows, too.

[Raynor]

like he did with werewolves

Hm, where is that stated?

Concerning the creation of dragons, the closest Tolkien ever came to describing it (that I know) is in the Book of lost tales, relating to the fall of Gondolin:

Therefore [Maeglin] counselled Melko to devise out of his sorceries a succour for his warriors in their endeavour. From the greatness of his wealth of metals and his powers of fire he bid him make beasts like snakes and dragons of irresistible might that should overcreep the Encircling Hills and lap that plain and its fair city in flame and death.

[Macalaure]

Hm, where is that stated?

Therefore an army was sent against him under the command of Sauron; and Sauron brought werewolves, fell beasts inhabited by dreadful spirits that he had imprisoned in their bodies.
~ Of Beren and Lúthien

And these spirits had to be at least somewhat sentient, since Draugluin spoke, though only once.

[Raynor]

beasts inhabited by dreadful spirits that he had imprisoned in their bodies.

I would say it is more likely that he imprisoned them in their original bodies, rather than he 'put' them there.

And these spirits had to be at least somewhat sentient, since Draugluin spoke, though only once.

In Myths Transformed, Tolkien speculated that orcs, who at the time he considered that they had no fea, were reeling off 'records' of language set in them. Also, Draugluin words aren't that much sophisticated. I would say even a modern day dog can be trained to give signals of various enemies.

[littlemanpoet]

Though I haven't done the research recently, I'm quite sure that somewhere in the Sil are a related published work, it speaks of fallen Maiar entering fell beasts, or being imprisoned in them, like dragons; or by this means making them fell? Or fell...er?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

If I remember correctly in BoLT Tolkien even played with the idea of Balrogs riding upon Dragons).

That's an amazing image - how awesome would this have been, in every sense of the word?!

Heh, and it also hints that the Balrogs did not have wings, if they needed steeds to ride upon...but that's not the discussion, is it?

Anyway. The thing with dragons is that they are not merely 'dumb animals' but truly terrifying creatures possessed with genuine intelligence and magical powers such as Glaurung's hypnotic stare - reminiscent of the Basilisk. And Tolkien, who 'desired dragons with a profound desire' would not have created stupid, animal-like dragons, he could only create truly terrifying, sentient dragons. However Melkor could not have created sentient beings, which is the sticking point. But he could have corrupted existing beings and bred from and with existing animals, and in so doing, create dragons who served Melkor's purposes.

In early drafts about the fall of Gondolin Tolkien wrote of mechanical objects which were in the form or shape of dragons attacking the city, reminiscent of the machinery of war in WWI (the flammenwerthers), but later had actual dragons engaged in this warfare - much more satisfying.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by ninja91

One more, where in the heck did the dragons come from? Where they created by good or evil, and either way, what was their purpose?

Animal Planet, a TV station, produced a show pretending that Dragons are/were real. They reviewed much literature to define what a dragon or dragons was/were, and figured out how such a creature could exist. They also 'solved' the flight and fire-breathing issues as well in clever ways.

Watching the 'documentary,' one might not be sure if the information is real or not. You can out more about the show here.

I just knew that Smaug was real.

[Folwren]

Hm. You might find this interesting.

http://salemjustice.org/IMS%20News.htm

[alatar]

If somebody saw it, then it must be true.

It was noted recently that the velociraptor (of Jurassic Park fame) and other dinosaurs weren't scaly, like lizards, but feathered, and if they were, then what of Smaug?

[Rumil]

Dragons with feathers, yes for practicality, a big no no no for myfficness!

After all you know dragons,

They have no word for fluffy