High Elves and the Balrogs

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I don't think he had any reason to keep his embodied, severely limiting form, other than sentimental reasons

The Valar may have been able to restore Olorin, but it's likely that he had many years of recuperation in Aman ahead of him after separating from his corporeal form. He may not have had much reason to remain incarnate, but the return to his natural form was no small thing.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Hmm...I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but if you mean what I think you do, then let me say three words to you....Joan of Arc. Led a national army before she was seventeen...good enough?

I think it was fairly obvious i was refering to Tolkien's work actually... off the top of my head only Eowyn and Morwen were ever depicted in a 'powerful' role - that is ofcourse in reference to humans, there are quite a few Elvish women depicted in such a light also.

Off topic, Joan of Arc only co-led the army i think you'll find with a certain Duke. Furthermore she was burned at the stake for heresy before she managed to finalise her aims - that said, she is an extraordinary example of female leadership, being so young and also, being a woman.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

I think it was fairly obvious i was refering to Tolkien's work actually... off the top of my head only Eowyn and Morwen were ever depicted in a 'powerful' role - that is ofcourse in reference to humans, there are quite a few Elvish women depicted in such a light also.

Here's another: Haleth of the Haladin was a woman considered the equal of any man in battle and led her people courageously.

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

Off topic, Joan of Arc only co-led the army i think you'll find with a certain Duke. Furthermore she was burned at the stake for heresy before she managed to finalise her aims - that said, she is an extraordinary example of female leadership, being so young and also, being a woman.

She did complete her primary aim, the reversal of France's fortunes in the 100 Year's War and almost single-handedly had Charles VII crowned king of France at Rheims. Without her vision and valor, the ineffectual Armagnacs would have eventually crumbled against the English/Burgundian alliance. As far as her heresy trial, it was a political sham, a mockery of justice that circumvented numerous ecclesiastical court procedures. The heresy charges were nullified by Pope Calixtus a mere 25 years after her death (astounding in the fact that the Catholic Church usually takes centuries to overturn previous rulings -- as in the case of Galileo).

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

She did complete her primary aim, the reversal of France's fortunes in the 100 Year's War and almost single-handedly had Charles VII crowned king of France at Rheims. Without her vision and valor, the ineffectual Armagnacs would have eventually crumbled against the English/Burgundian alliance. As far as her heresy trial, it was a political sham, a mockery of justice that circumvented numerous ecclesiastical court procedures. The heresy charges were nullified by Pope Calixtus a mere 25 years after her death (astounding in the fact that the Catholic Church usually takes centuries to overturn previous rulings -- as in the case of Galileo).

You just proved what i said lol... almost being a key-word. Alot of what Joan of Arc achieved is hypothetically speaking, "would have" and so on. She did not achieve everything that she set out to do. I'm not trying to make her appear weaker because she is a woman, i'm just trying to prove a point. She was never granted full military control, she had to confer with the Duke of [insert] before any major decisions were made.

She was burned at the stake, whether it was anulled or not, the "mockery" was successful and the mighty Joan of Arc was made a martyr... get over it.

[obloquy]

If I had posted either of the two previous responses it would have been deleted.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by obloquy

If I had posted either of the two previous responses it would have been deleted.

Just clearing up a misunderstanding mate

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Hammerhand

You just proved what i said lol... almost being a key-word. Alot of what Joan of Arc achieved is hypothetically speaking, "would have" and so on. She did not achieve everything that she set out to do. I'm not trying to make her appear weaker because she is a woman, i'm just trying to prove a point. She was never granted full military control, she had to confer with the Duke of [insert] before any major decisions were made.

She was burned at the stake, whether it was anulled or not, the "mockery" was successful and the mighty Joan of Arc was made a martyr... get over it.

Not wishing to go too off-topic here, but please reread what I said. I stated "She did complete her primary aim, the reversal of France's fortunes in the 100 Year's War and almost single-handedly had Charles VII crowned king of France at Rheims." The 'almost' you are referring to does not mitigate her achievement. She did get Charles crowned king, which was her aim, and she did so 'almost' single-handedly (incredible for a teenage girl of the era).

As far as conferring with Duc de Alençon, yes she did, what of it? She eventually became co-commander of an army with him. She also had many heated arguments with Dunois of Orleans over tactics. Had she not prevailed with her strategy, Dunois was ready to retreat before the taking of les Tournelles and the raising of the siege of Orleans would have failed. She completed in nine days what the French army did not do in five months. Bluntly, the French achieved victory because of her choice of tactics over the established leadership's cautious and defeatist attitudes. The raising of the siege of Orleans marked the turning point in the Hundred Year's War. There are no hypotheticals about it.

As far as 'getting over it', please watch your tone. I would hate to see this thread locked because of unnecessary attitude.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Back to Tolkien, please.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Not wishing to go too off-topic here, but please reread what I said. I stated "She did complete her primary aim, the reversal of France's fortunes in the 100 Year's War and almost single-handedly had Charles VII crowned king of France at Rheims." The 'almost' you are referring to does not mitigate her achievement. She did get Charles crowned king, which was her aim, and she did so 'almost' single-handedly (incredible for a teenage girl of the era).

As far as conferring with Duc de Alençon, yes she did, what of it? She eventually became co-commander of an army with him. She also had many heated arguments with Dunois of Orleans over tactics. Had she not prevailed with her strategy, Dunois was ready to retreat before the taking of les Tournelles and the raising of the siege of Orleans would have failed. She completed in nine days what the French army did not do in five months. Bluntly, the French achieved victory because of her choice of tactics over the established leadership's cautious and defeatist attitudes. The raising of the siege of Orleans marked the turning point in the Hundred Year's War. There are no hypotheticals about it.

As far as 'getting over it', please watch your tone. I would hate to see this thread locked because of unnecessary attitude.

Please do not talk to me in such a condescending tone - i actually feel quite annoyed now. Half of the information and debate gathered here is without cause, i havn't commented on Joan of Arc's bad military tactics because i think they were quite excellent - so why would you bring it up like i've disputed it? My only argument against Joan of Arc was that she is given recognition as the sole force that changed the fate of the French Monarchy and decisively won the French victories in the 100 Years War - when in fact she was in no way working alone, she depended on the support of others, being a teenage girl what would you expect?

Actually, alot of the issues concerning Joan of Arc are hypothetically speaking, check your sources again. Because certain things were achieved after her death that she fought for, it does not mean that she alone made it happen.

So i'll beg you again to refrain from the pretentious statements and the argument altogether, i've had my say, as have you - Joan of Arc isn't particularly relevant so i'll carry on with the thread now.

I think it is all very well saying Galadriel could defeat a Balrog by herself, what with the amount of quotations supporting her being the "Greatest" of the Noldor behind Feanor, but whenever a mortal has faced a Balrog, it has been a weapon-in-hand job - Interestingly with Olórin which i now feel compelled to read again, he appears to resume his former shape and do a "power" battle with Durin's Bane. Is it possible to say that Galadriel could equal the Maiar's efforts in power? I'm not sure. I still remain confident that Galadriel would not best a Balrog with a blade, the quotations given just don't define her as a warrior,we have ones of her "greatness" which i believe refer to her mind, and ones of her "athletic ability" and so forth, i could be wrong, but Galadriel only wielded a blade on the odd occasion over the course of thousands of years.

Compare her to Fingolfin, Ecthelion or Glorfindel, each are continuously reputed with their battle skill. Galadriel is in reference to her beauty and mind. I can't see it myself, but their is some evidence there to suggest her military capability, it is just not as clear as with other characters - and so it leads to what we are all doing now, speculating.

Besides, i feel sorry for Celeborn if Galadriel had the power to crush a Balrog :P

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Please keep personal comments out of public posts. Any points on which two members conflict should be resolved in private messages. Thank you!

[obloquy]

I don't think anyone said she could "crush" a Balrog.

Is it possible to say that Galadriel could equal the Maiar's efforts in power?

Yes, in fact. We have a handy example in Glorfindel, whose duel with a Balrog went much the same as Gandalf's did. His power was actually increased through his reincarnation and recuperation in Aman, and he returned to Middle-earth almost a peer of the Maiar. Galadriel was more powerful than Glorfindel.

Relevant text from HoMe XII Late Writings:

[Glorfindel] then became again a living incarnate person, but was permitted to dwell in the Blessed Realm; for he had regained the primitive innocence and grace of the Eldar. For long years he remained in Valinor, in reunion with the Eldar who had not rebelled, and in the companionship of the Maiar. To these he had now become almost an equal, for though he was an incarnate (to whom a bodily form not made or chosen by himself was necessary) his spiritual power had been greatly enhanced by his self-sacrifice.

What, Tolkien? "Spiritual power"? Why, we have never heard of this before!

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I don't think anyone said she could "crush" a Balrog.

Yes, in fact. We have a handy example in Glorfindel, whose duel with a Balrog went much the same as Gandalf's did. His power was actually increased through his reincarnation and recuperation in Aman, and he returned to Middle-earth almost a peer of the Maiar. Galadriel was more powerful than Glorfindel.

Relevant text from HoMe XII Late Writings:

What, Tolkien? "Spiritual power"? Why, we have never heard of this before!

So if Galadriel was more powerful than Glorfindel, that means the curse of Mandos hasn't harshly affected her (except for weariness). And wasn't it said that the Eldar diminished in their spiritual powers eventually, or become weary to that effect? And if she was still more powerful than Glorfindel even after his rebirth, that would mean she was the closest to a Maia, right? But then Tolkien is confusing. He says that Galadriel was the mightiest and fairest of all the elves (including the mighty Glorfindel) in the 3rd age. But he seems to suggest that Elrond was inherently more powerful than Galadriel in one of his letters:

Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him - being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form. In the 'Mirror of Galadriel', 1381, it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. If so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Galadriel was more powerful than Glorfindel.

Why would you say that?

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Gorthaur the Cruel

...And if she was still more powerful But he seems to suggest that Elrond was inherently more powerful than Galadriel in one of his letters:
[/I]

I think Elrond doesn't get enough positive recognition. Although everyone knows he is the son of Earendil and descendant of Melian and Thingol - he is relatively young as far as the history of ME goes, or rather, he has much to be compared to. He is never really given a "the fairest" "the strongest" or the "the wisest" title, moreso that he's good with wounds, is clued up on topical issues and has alot of experience in which he can relate situations to.

Personally, from the day i read his name in the Hobbit, i thought he was a fantastic character, but thats opinion. I see no reason why he shouldn't be considered "very powerful" His family tree is impressive is it not? and we all know how important family ties are in Middle Earth. He was present at a fair few of the decisive battles, Last Alliance for one, i apologise for not having any references with me at the present.

So though it never really states it, i see no reason why Elrond's power cannot be close or beyond Galadriel's. A positive in regard to Galadriel is that she has always been active with her power, the number of quotes in this thread prove that, whereas Elrond, taking into consideration his age and location, does not gain as much recognition. I hope that makes sense, i feel like i'm dying lol

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Gorthaur the Cruel

So if Galadriel was more powerful than Glorfindel, that means the curse of Mandos hasn't harshly affected her (except for weariness). And wasn't it said that the Eldar diminished in their spiritual powers eventually, or become weary to that effect?

Galadriel's diminishment would not have occured until after the destruction of the One Ring and her going into the West (as she herself prophesies in her dialogue with Frodo in Lothlorien); nevertheless, as I stated previously, she demolishes the walls of Dol Guldur after the One Ring was destroyed, which represents an act of immense innate power above and beyond being a bearer of Nenya, which would have lost its potency with the One Ring's demise.

Originally Posted by Gorthaur the Cruel

But then Tolkien is confusing. He says that Galadriel was the mightiest and fairest of all the elves (including the mighty Glorfindel) in the 3rd age. But he seems to suggest that Elrond was inherently more powerful than Galadriel in one of his letters:

There is no confusion really; I believe you might be misreading Tolkien's quote. He is stating that Galadriel believed herself capable of wielding the One Ring, but also the other guardians of the Three (that would be, at various times, Gil-Galad, Cirdan, Gandalf and Elrond) could also be capable of wielding the Ring as well, and of those other guardians, Elrond in particular. I don't believe the statement gives precedence to either Galadriel or Elrond.

It must also be remembered that Celebrimbor originally gave the Three Rings of Power only to his High-King, Gil-Galad, and to Galadriel (Gil-Galad then giving one each to Elrond and Cirdan, who in turn gave his to Gandalf). This, I believe, infers the status of Galadriel amongst the Elves.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Why would you say that?

Because of references already posted in this thread. You may believe that Glorfindel, in his enhancement, exceeded what was previously the upper limit of Eldarin power (Luthien, Feanor, Galadriel) but I do not, and can see no support for the idea.

Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him - being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form. In the 'Mirror of Galadriel', 1381, it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. If so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond.

Tolkien evidently does not share Galadriel's opinion of herself, since "others" in the first sentence appears to include the Elves, and he clearly names only Gandalf as having sufficient spiritual stature. He also becomes confusing at the end, saying that among the other guardians of the Three (other than Galadriel; i.e. Gandalf and Elrond), Elrond is especially capable. Elrond is more capable than Gandalf? I think Tolkien misspoke here, unless he was referring to who would yield the most desirable outcome from becoming the new Lord of the Ring. In which case, power alone is not the only consideration.

Edit: Or, as Morthoron mentioned, he refers to the ring bearers of all ages. Good post.

[Boromir88]

Actually the original quote was taken out of context and not given in full, which greatly alters the meaning of the entire part:

Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him - being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form. In the “Mirror of Galadriel”, I 381, it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. If so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond. But this is another matter. It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power. But this the Great had well considered and had rejected, as is seen in Elrond’s words at the Council. Galadriel’s rejection of the temptation was founded upon previous thought and resolve.~Letter 246

To set up the scenario here Tolkien was talking about Frodo claiming the Ring and a hypothetical 'Frodo ringbearer' scenario. He goes onto say that Frodo would not have been able to do much, he would have been taken back to Sauron, tortured and Sauron would have the Ring back. He goes on to say that no mortal could possible beat Sauron for mastery of the Ring. And the only reason Aragorn beat Sauron in the contest with the palantir was because it took place at a distant and Aragorn was the rightful owner.

He then moves onto 'the others' (which like obloquy I assume as Maiar and Elves)...to which he says only Gandalf might be expected to beat Sauron for mastery of the Ring. He then talks about the 'other guardians' of the Elven Rings (which I think he would only be referring to Elrond, Galadriel, and Gandalf as those are the only ones he mentions).

What's important here is Tolkien doesn't say what he thinks, but what his characters think:

In the “Mirror of Galadriel”, I 381, it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord.

He then goes onto say that if Galadriel 'conceived' this herself so did the other Guardians...specially Elrond: If so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond.

This quote is talking about what the bearers felt they could use the One Ring for, and that's why the last part of the quote (which seems to be conveniently left out) is important to the understanding. As he then talks about the 'essential deceit of the Ring.' Elrond, Galadriel, and Gandalf were all smart enough to know that the Ring was deceiving them with visions of 'supreme power' and were able to reject their own thoughts of using the Ring against Sauron. It has nothing to do with power unless you use it to show why Gandalf was one (if not the) most powerful person on Middle-earth. It is more about what various people thought they could do with the Ring (but the Ring being the evil little deceiver it is fills people with ideas of grandeur and power) and what they could actually do.

[obloquy]

Great post, Boromir88. My reputation button is not functioning, so I have to just tell you here that I appreciate your contribution.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

You may believe that Glorfindel, in his enhancement, exceeded what was previously the upper limit of Eldarin power (Luthien, Feanor, Galadriel) but I do not, and can see no support for the idea.

I wouldn't equate Galadriel being capable of wielding the ring with her being more powerful than Glorfindel in battle. In letter #246, Tolkien talks even about Frodo possibly becoming capable of wielding the ring, should his will be given enough time

Frodo had become a considerable person, but of a special kind: in spiritual enlargement rather than in increase of physical or mental power; his will was much stronger than it had been, but so far it had been exercised in resisting not using the Ring and with the object of destroying it. He needed time, much time, before he could control the Ring or (which in such a case is the same) before it could control him; before his will and arrogance could grow to a stature in which he could dominate other major hostile wills.

However, even if it occurred, I doubt that Frodo (without his ring) would be more powerful than Glorfindel, in battle, since his will (which is implied to be the one ingredient necessary for controlling the ring) and the battle skills of a hobbit would simply not suffice to take down an Elf Lord (or a balrog, for that matter).

Originally Posted by obloquy

Great post, Boromir88. My reputation button is not functioning, so I have to just tell you here that I appreciate your contribution.

I got the same problem; instead of clicking the reputation button, I opened it in a new window (or tab) and I was able to rep.

[obloquy]

I wouldn't equate Galadriel being capable of wielding the ring with her being more powerful than Glorfindel in battle.

I wasn't talking about that, actually. I was referring to the text you quoted earlier in the thread from The Shibboleth of Feanor.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I wasn't talking about that, actually. I was referring to the text you quoted earlier in the thread from The Shibboleth of Feanor.

I see; sorry for the blunder. However, I have my doubts that being one of the greatest of the Noldor means she is more powerful in battle than Glorfindel; in my opinion, the title refers more to "political" role and achievements, rather than warrior abilities.

[Gorthaur the Cruel]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I see; sorry for the blunder. However, I have my doubts that being one of the greatest of the Noldor means she is more powerful in battle than Glorfindel; in my opinion, the title refers more to "political" role and achievements, rather than warrior abilities.

But what about the potent magicks that she has and performed? doesn't that count as "warrior" abillities? the phial, the scrying on sauron, the healing and shrouding fog over the Eorl's men, healing Gandalf, and repelling three waves of attacks... that doesn't count as "warrior" abilities? It seems to me that it is but of more grand scale than a one-on-one bout.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Gorthaur the Cruel

But what about the potent magicks that she has and performed? doesn't that count as "warrior" abillities? the phial, the scrying on sauron, the healing and shrouding fog over the Eorl's men, healing Gandalf, and repelling three waves of attacks... that doesn't count as "warrior" abilities? It seems to me that it is but of more grand scale than a one-on-one bout.

I don't deny that she has some cool tricks; however, that doesn't guarantee she can best Glorfindel in battle.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Gorthaur the Cruel

But what about the potent magicks that she has and performed? doesn't that count as "warrior" abillities? the phial, the scrying on sauron, the healing and shrouding fog over the Eorl's men, healing Gandalf, and repelling three waves of attacks... that doesn't count as "warrior" abilities? It seems to me that it is but of more grand scale than a one-on-one bout.

The last sentence was a good summary, however, i'm inclined to agree with Raynor on the point of her battle "abilities" - somebody made the statement earlier about her achievements being more "political", and that is the basis for the title "greatest". I think it has more to do with her perceptive abilities, strength of mind and will. To arrive at the conclusion that because she was dubbed "greatest" by Tolkien, she is a battle hardened war veteren of unmitigated power (exaggerated) i think is taking what Tolkien said and basing it on practically anything that can have a hierarchy. We have little evidence she could actually fight, and only a few scenarios whereby she is destructive through magic. For me, evidence is against her completely.

[obloquy]

Tolkien uses the same unqualified "greatest" to describe Galadriel as he does to describe Sauron (greatest of Melkor's servants). Please tell us why you refuse to allow Galadriel's greatness to include prowess in battle. It certainly isn't based on anything in the books. As I outlined in my "Sauron vs. Your Mama" thread, Middle-earth battles are more about spiritual stature than anything else. Maybe you can come up with an example of an exception to this rule, but I can't.

[Raynor]

At least on the general level, Galadriel, as an Elven woman, is rather guaranteed to deal some serious damage in battle:

Originally Posted by Aelfwine's Preamble, Later Quenta Silmarillion, HoME X

Indeed, in dire straits or desperate defence, the nissi fought valiantly, and there was less difference in strength and speed between elven-men and elven-women that had not borne child than is seen among mortals.

Edit:
And more specifically, I am reminded of her role in the battle of Alqualonde, as envisioned in the last version of the rebellion of the Noldor, set down in Tolkien's last month of his life:

Originally Posted by The History of Galadriel and Celeborn, Part IV of the Unfinished Tales

In Feanor's revolt that followed the Darkening of Valinor Galadriel had no part: indeeed she with Celeborn fought heroically in defence of Alqualonde against the assault of the Noldor, and Celeborn's ship was saved from them.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Tolkien uses the same unqualified "greatest" to describe Galadriel as he does to describe Sauron (greatest of Melkor's servants). Please tell us why you refuse to allow Galadriel's greatness to include prowess in battle. It certainly isn't based on anything in the books. As I outlined in my "Sauron vs. Your Mama" thread, Middle-earth battles are more about spiritual stature than anything else. Maybe you can come up with an example of an exception to this rule, but I can't.

I refuse to allow Galadriel's greatness to include prowess in battle simply because she fought maybe once or twice in the history of ME, by "fought" i refer to fighting - whether that includes a degree of spiritual works or sword, i mean a confrontational bout. She may have attacked Dol Guldur and broken its walls... with her power, and yet, has she ever claimed a significant life? not to my recollection. Celeborn led the host against Dol Guldur, whilst Galadriel stood atop a hill and fashioned some devilish hocus pocus.

What can magic do for you in a one on one bout? when there is a scant second between each parry? Not a great deal.

Ecthelion slew 3 Balrogs, and Gothmog (Maiar?) - It was achieved through his sword and helmet. Glorfindel slew a Balrog - He fought with a blade also. The Hammer of Wrath all bore weapons when they collectively slew several Balrogs. Fingolfin wounded the most powerful Valar with a blade. Infact, only Gandalf weaved magic into his combat (that with Durin's Bane) and he was Maiar. Conclusion - it doesn't take a spell to defeat a being of immense "power". It just takes a really skilled combatant.

So though magic may well be a prominent player in battle, in a one on one bout, it has little bearence, in my opinion. It is usually the case that those equipped with great power are also cunning fighters, which is why we associate that power with their battle prowess.

Unfortunately i don't have my books on tap at the moment, so i can't quote anything.

I think that the notion of "power" not being a key weapon in a duel is altogether plausible. So much evidence backs it up, and it is realistic. All of the greatest warriors bore a weapon, was it a means of channeling the "power"? i doubt it. Its just because they were great warriors, nothing more. Maybe with the lack of heroes during the third age, it is harder to determine the gravity of people in ages past. That is my level of thinking anyway, is it totally unbelievable?

[Raynor]

Well, there are other instances when magic was essential in a battle. Finrod and Sauron fought each other in songs of power and Luthien was capable of putting down even Melkor through her song. The valar battled Melkor in the beginning of Arda, and they dealt disastrous damage to the earth, much of which I would attribute to magic, rather than mere weapons.

[obloquy]

I never said anything about Galadriel's magic.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I never said anything about Galadriel's magic.

Then i see even less reason as to why she'd be an able fighter to be honest.

[Boromir88]

I refuse to allow Galadriel's greatness to include prowess in battle simply because she fought maybe once or twice in the history of ME~Hammerhand

It doesn't matter how many times we are told Galadriel fought (with a 'blade')...what matters is that we know she could and that she did indeed fight with a 'blade' before. And my understanding that when she fought with a blade (as Raynor has provided with the Unfinished Tales quote) that she was quite good.

I say 'times we are told Galadriel fought' because as CT points out the tale of Galadriel and Celeborn was being 'refashioned', their roles were becoming greater, and not everything was known.

There is no part of the history of Middle-earth more full of problems than the story of Galadriel and Celeborn; and it must be admitted that there are severe inconsistancies "embedded in the traditions"; or, to look at the matter from another point of view, that the role and importance of Galadriel only emerged slowly, and that her story underwent continual refashionings.~Unfinished Tales: The History of Galadriel and Celeborn

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

It doesn't matter how many times we are told Galadriel fought (with a 'blade')...what matters is that we know she could and that she did indeed fight with a 'blade' before. And my understanding that when she fought with a blade (as Raynor has provided with the Unfinished Tales quote) that she was quite good.

I say 'times we are told Galadriel fought' because as CT points out the tale of Galadriel and Celeborn was being 'refashioned', their roles were becoming greater, and not everything was known.

I'll concede that she had the ability to use a blade. I do believe it is important that she seldom fought, and that she never fought anyone of significance. The reason being that we know little about her physical abilities, so to claim she could best a Balrog or even Glorfindel... or many others, to me, is hypothetical and unfounded.

The roles of Galadriel and Celeborn only became more important because they were two of the few Elven Lords still in charge of a settlement in Middle Earth and because they bore a large degree of power and influence - I can't see many other reasons besides, unless ofcourse Tolkien had some other purpose for the characters.

[CSteefel]

Another possible argument against one of the three Rings like Nenya making a big difference is that Gandalf was wearing one himself. Here you have a Maia pitted against a Maia, but with one holding one of the 3 Rings. To the extent that the contest between the Balrog and Gandalf was a draw, then it would seem the Ring didn't make a large amount of difference.

However...

Perhaps another way to view the contest between Gandalf and the Balrog is that Gandalf did win finally, but that the mortal part of himself (the form he took on coming to Middle Earth) was the casualty. From this interpretation, Gandalf is really made up of two components: the Maiar (that later becomes Gandalf the White) and the human, which suffers heat and cold and injury like the rest of men.

Where this leaves Galadriel or Glorfindel is less clear, but neither seems to have a clearly human form in the same sense that Gandalf has (for example, Glorfindel still appears as young as a spring chicken despite his 6,000 year age, while Gandalf appears more aged, even if he does age slowly).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It must also be remembered that Celebrimbor originally gave the Three Rings of Power only to his High-King, Gil-Galad, and to Galadriel (Gil-Galad then giving one each to Elrond and Cirdan, who in turn gave his to Gandalf). This, I believe, infers the status of Galadriel amongst the Elves.

While there's little doubt about her native power, this I think also was a question of 'legitimacy:' Gil-Galad and Galadriel were the only fully-Elven members of the House of Finwe left in Middle-earth.


Hammerhand: I' think you're confusing the meaning of 'early' and 'late' Balrogs. What folks are trying to say is that Balrogs *in JRRT's early writings* are more numerous and less individually powerful than they would become *in Tolkien's later writings*- not that from an internal perspective Balrogs became more powerful over time.


Canonicity: If we're going to confine ourself to works published before 1973, then the Balrog of Moria is the *only* one. If on the other hand we take the more reasonable approach of trying to deduce from existing writings what Tolkien's considered opinion was, then we see that as late as ca. 1970 Glorfindel's duel was still in effect; and as late as the work on 'Maeglin' Glorfindel and Ecthelion are paired as the great captains of the Hidden City. What we can't do is conclude that the old Tale remains canonical, notwithstanding certain elements of Tuor's journey which would endure: the heraldry of 1917 was gone by 1951, as were (almost certainly) the mechanical dragon-tanks, and any linguistic structure that would allow an Elf to be named "Rog."

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Hammerhand: I' think you're confusing the meaning of 'early' and 'late' Balrogs. What folks are trying to say is that Balrogs *in JRRT's early writings* are more numerous and less individually powerful than they would become *in Tolkien's later writings*- not that from an internal perspective Balrogs became more powerful over time.


Canonicity: If we're going to confine ourself to works published before 1973, then the Balrog of Moria is the *only* one. If on the other hand we take the more reasonable approach of trying to deduce from existing writings what Tolkien's considered opinion was, then we see that as late as ca. 1970 Glorfindel's duel was still in effect; and as late as the work on 'Maeglin' Glorfindel and Ecthelion are paired as the great captains of the Hidden City. What we can't do is conclude that the old Tale remains canonical, notwithstanding certain elements of Tuor's journey which would endure: the heraldry of 1917 was gone by 1951, as were (almost certainly) the mechanical dragon-tanks, and any linguistic structure that would allow an Elf to be named "Rog."

So if the Balrogs were less powerful, would that mean Gothmog was less powerful than Durin's Bane? Furthermore, if there were only seven Balrogs at a time in ME, how come we never hear of any besides Durin's Bane in the third age? and why didn't they help Sauron? Doesn't really make sense to me.

My previous point concerning Fingolfin was solid. If a powerful elf can wound a Valar, why wouldn't one be able to wound or kill a 'later' Balrog? Say for example that Ecthelion fought Durin's Bane, would you conclude that Durin's Bane would triumph? Swap Ecthelion with Glorfindel or Fingolfin, would you draw the same conclusion? Alot of this topic is hypothetical, being that half of the people being debated never fought a Balrog, and most of those that did, fought 'early' Balrogs.

I also think personally, that if there is an elf named "Rog", and it was published, we can only assume it was meant to be - maybe Tolkien, the lawmaker, didn't want a Nordic representation of him? I am not a linguistics expert, it just seems to me that though most of the names in ME have a 'meaning' as such, does it make it obligatory?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

So if the Balrogs were less powerful, would that mean Gothmog was less powerful than Durin's Bane?

No, because Gothmog simply became a 'later' Balrog over the course of Tolkien's life: he appears in the Narn i Chin Hurin (mid-1950's) by name, as High-Captain of Angband and the slayer of Fingon. It's probably fair to say that Tolkien's view of Balrogs' puissance generally was modified by the might he gave Gandalf's foe.


I'ts not the case that there were "seven Balrogs at a time." There were seven, period. They didn't get replaced. Two were killed at Gondolin; during the War odf Wrath "wellnigh all" of them were destroyed, "save some few" who hid themselves deep underground. That particular line in the Silm. actually predates the Lord of the Rings, when there were hordes of the buggers. In any event, it's clear that the Dwarves 'awoke' the Balrog of Moria, so it and any possible other survivors of the Elder Days were presumably in some sort of hibernation, or trapped, or otherwise not in play.

Besides, why would any Balrog serve Sauron? There's no suggestion the one we know about did- it seemed content to spend over a thousand years lurking in Moria and not exerting itself.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Rog: The name never has appeared in print, except in HoME. He's a leftover from a very primitive stage in what would become Sindarin, when it was still called Goldogrin or Gnomish.

[Hammerhand]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

No, because Gothmog simply became a 'later' Balrog over the course of Tolkien's life: he appears in the Narn i Chin Hurin (mid-1950's) by name, as High-Captain of Angband and the slayer of Fingon. It's probably fair to say that Tolkien's view of Balrogs' puissance generally was modified by the might he gave Gandalf's foe.


I'ts not the case that there were "seven Balrogs at a time." There were seven, period. They didn't get replaced. Two were killed at Gondolin; during the War odf Wrath "wellnigh all" of them were destroyed, "save some few" who hid themselves deep underground. That particular line in the Silm. actually predates the Lord of the Rings, when there were hordes of the buggers. In any event, it's clear that the Dwarves 'awoke' the Balrog of Moria, so it and any possible other survivors of the Elder Days were presumably in some sort of hibernation, or trapped, or otherwise not in play.

Besides, why would any Balrog serve Sauron? There's no suggestion the one we know about did- it seemed content to spend over a thousand years lurking in Moria and not exerting itself.

Ahh i understand where you are coming from now, thanks alot for explaining your perspective.

I think its interesting how Ecthelion managed to stay Gothmog with conventional equipment, as did Glorfindel, whereas Gandalf the Maiar was dependent on his hocus pocus to kill Durin's Bane after days of combat.

The lesson in this: Do not mess with an angry Elf.

It leaves many questions unanswered though if we choose to not necessarily include some of Tolkien's earlier work in evalutions.

[Mithadan]

I've not gone back to read this entire thread so I may simply be repeating what some other member has said here. The relative strength of the Balrog's opponent may be entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the combatant can survive. There appears to be an unwritten rule in the Legendarium that "he who slays one of the people of the Ainur must also perish." Indeed there is no case known where one who defeats any of the few Maiar reported as slain manages to survive. Ecthelion and Balrog, both died. Glorfindel and Balrog, both died. Gandalf and Balrog (or Balrog and Gandalf), both dead. Wormtongue and Saruman, both dead. Elendil/Gil-Galad and Sauron, all dead.

My, isn't this just so pleasant?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Balrogs vs. Noldor: it's tragically the case that Tolkien only wrote an account of Gondolin's fall twice: the very early Tale, in fact the first one he ever wrote; and the version which perforce was used in the published Silmarillion, which dates from 1930. He never returned to it. Had he finished the 'Long Tuor' (in UT) we might have had a completely new take on Ecthelion and Glorfindel.

It is perhaps worth noting that Gandalf, like these two, had a Gondolin-made sword.