Balrog size

[Kuruharan]

Yeah, that question seems to come up on every Tolkien website...

Fairly often too.

I wonder if that's part of the power that Melkor gave them? That Six or Seven Ages later questions about the nature of Balrogs would have the power to reduce normally reasonable and rational individuals into vicious, bloodthirsty savages locked in mortal combat until there is nothing to be seen except a vast desolate wasteland piled high with the bodies of the slain.
Have I seen the like happen before, you ask?
*shudder* Oh!! the memories... [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]
(Not to imply that nasty and bloody mortal combat is going on here or anything like that. Not at all.)

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[Yaish]

Ok, actually now to shoot myself in the foot. Later in the same passage, the Mines of Moria there is evidence for the Balrog being much larger. Again, its all circumstantial and supposition.
"Gandalf stood in the middle of the span". We know the bridge was 50 feet from the text, so Gandalf is 25 ft from the edge.
"It stepped forward slowly onto the bridge..." then "From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming"
"The Balrog fell back..."
"With a bound the Balrog leaped full upon the bridge..."

Obviously I left several lines out, but these are the key action sequences. Gandalf 25ft from the edge in the middle of the bridge, Balrog stepping slowly onto the bridge (then drawing himself up to great height) and swinging his sword at Gandalf. Gandalf parries with Glamdring, staggers the Balrog and knocks him back, then the Balrog recovers and bounds FULL onto the bridge.
Either this indicates that the Balrog was never fully on the bridge, or was knocked completely back by Gandalfs sword blow. If knocked completely off the bridge, it flew back 20-25 ft, while its blow merely staggered Gandalf a step. If Gandalf was so powerful, how could the Balrog have killed him as well?
The alternate interpretation is that the Balrog was only just at the foot of the bridge when he struck at Gandalf, requiring a reach of some 20 ft or so. That argues for an immense Balrog. By Tolkiens use of the word FULL we can be pretty sure that after Gandalfs blow the Balrog was knocked completely off the bridge, back to its foot.

Compromise solution, that fits the mental image I get from reading that passage too.
A 12ft Balrog steps on the bridge, take 2, 3 strides (covering approx 12 ft) It is now about halfway between Gandalf and the foot of the bridge. He pauses, straightens to his full height and swells his shadow in an attempt to impress and intimidate Gandalf. Then, while Gandalf is hopefully distracted the Balrog leaps forwards, sword swinging. Gandalf is alert however and parries the blow. Glamdring shatters the Balrogs sword and the power released and the Balrogs off balance position send him flying back at least his own body length (12ft), he skids another couple feet, and comes to rest back at the foot of the bridge (remember, a 12 ft Balrog would have a reach of about 6 ft, and a sword 6-8ft long. From his 12ft position on the bridge he needed only leap ~4ft to reach Gandalf). Big bad Balrog gets back up, bounds onto the bridge and all hell breaks loose (well at least the bridge does)

Oh, how I wish for GI Joe action figures to work it out for you!!

[Kuruharan]

Sounds like you've got this down to a science! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
I'm certainly not going to argue with you because a 12' Balrog fits my interpretation just fine. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Thingol]

There's not really much to argue about, Tolkien wrote that the Balrog that was killed by Glorfindel was well night twice his height. Not all Balrogs have to be the exact same size, but they have to be reasonably close. Assuming Glorfindel to be around 6 feet to 6 feet 5 inches, the Balrogs would probably be around 10-15 feet.

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Elendur]

Now Maia or not, Gandalf is restricted to the limitations of his human body. That would include mass and inertia. I think anything much bigger than a 12 ft balrog would have simply swept Gandalf off the bridge with his blow.
Next we have the scene where the Balrogs whip is "dragging him to the brink". Gandalf "grasped vainly at the stone" clearly showing he was being dragged slowly, yet surely by the balrogs weight. By cube square law for a doubling in dimensions you get a quadruple in volume. A 12ft Balrog would have weighed about 800 lbs (given a 6 ft man at 200). Anything much heavier than that would simply have dragged Gandalf over without any hesitation.

I agree that this is speculation at best, but I just wanted to put in my words more for fun than anything else.

Gandalf was restricted to the limitations of his human body, but he was still very strong. I am too lazy to get quotes to prove my point, but hopefully you can take my word for what Im about to talk about. Gandalf had passed through Moria before he went in with the fellowship. He entered at the eastern entrance and exited on the western side. To exit through the western side of Moria, you have to get through the doors that the fellowship opened with the word Mellon. In Unfinished Tales it says that the doors could be opened from the inside without doing anything but pushing on the door, but that it took 2 dwarves or maybe a Dwarf Lord to open the door alone. So that means Gandalf had the strength of a great dwarf to have forced the doors open to exit Moria.

With that said, I think we can conclude that Gandalf may have had a part in being dragged off the bridge slowly, while a person of less strength would have been swept off more quickly. And I dont think Gandalf is 200 pounds. I would say at the most he is 180.

[Kuruharan]

So that means Gandalf had the strength of a great dwarf to have forced the doors open to exit Moria.

Not necessarily. He had abilities beyond his physical body. I always thought that he used his staff and blasted open the doors with it.
Although he was probably not as physically weak as his 'old man' body appeared.

[Rhudladion]

I think anyone who can snatch a Hobbit (Samwise, who probably weighed around 80 pounds or so) off the ground, then through a window, with one arm, and without really being that arroused is probably pretty darn strong.

[Kuruharan]

True, true. But there is still a difference between lifting a hobbit (even with one arm) and pushing open the dwarf doors of Moria.
Maybe I'm just stubbornly insisting that Gandalf used his staff just because it was there and would be quicker. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[Elendur]

Does anyone else remember a part in LOTR where Gandalf picks Frodo up? It said something like Frodo was suprised that Gandalf could lift him with such ease even though he looked so old and frail.

But you get my point. There was more strength in Galdalf than there seemed to be, even physically.

[Thingol]

Gandalf lifts up Faramir, not Frodo, it says he revelaed the strength within him and lifted him lightly off the stone slab Denethor had laid him on. There is no question that Gandalf is much stronger than he appears in his form, but he is not very heavy, Gwaihir says he is as light as a feather.

[Elendur]

Gwaihir only makes that comment when Gandalf comes back as Gandalf the White. And it is understandable why Gandalf would be light as a feather after not having eaten for so long and fighting with the Balrog.

[Kuruharan]

Gwaihir only makes that comment when Gandalf comes back as Gandalf the White. And it is understandable why Gandalf would be light as a feather after not having eaten for so long and fighting with the Balrog.

But when he picked up Faramir he was Gandalf the White too. I am not certain that he could have been so light or quite so strong as Gandalf the Grey. When he died and came back he came back greatly enhanced in power. I think that his greater physical strength and lightness of body were parts of that transformation. He was not as restricted by his physical form as Gandalf the White I guess I am saying.
(How did we get onto this anyway?) [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Elendur]

That is probably true, Kuruharan. As to your question, topics on the Barrow Downs can go alot of ways very fast. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Just a question I have, now that Im thinking about Gandalfs fight with the Balrog. When the Balrog swung down on Gandalf with his sword, Gandalf was able to resist the blow using Glamdring. Do you think it was pure physical strength that enabled him to do this, which I doubt, or that Glamdring was kindof like a focus on his power so that when needed it could act almost as a staff? All of the more famous swords seemed to emulate the feelings/power of it weilder. When Gandalf was fighting the Balrog Glamdring shone so that the Balrogs shadow couldn't overtake him. So it seems to me like a sword was more than just a peice of steel alot of the time, and with Gandalf it was even more powerful because of his powerful spirit. Just tell me your thoughts. The issues with swords has always been a topic I wanted to discuss. To me it is like swords are aware of everything and even have a spirit. Does Tolkien ever adress this?

[zifnab]

Good questions about swords Elendur. One can "assume" that it takes more then the weilder of a sword to make it "alive", I think a big part would be the marker/crafter/forger. One can also assume if that is true, then couldn't the balrogs whips be the same?!

[KayQy]

Know what? 15 ft is huge! I mean, just try to get your mind around something big enough to hit its head on the ceiling of a normal modern building--that's only 8-10 ft there.

I think that past a certain point, the human brain just can't really grasp very large sizes or numbers, unless they have something to compare them to. Just imagine looking up at a Balrog. How far do you have to crane your neck before you get scared?

And if one little hobbit could send Shelob running with her entrails between her legs, eight 10-15' Balrogs would definitely make Ungoliant think twice about continuing to fight.

On the other side of the coin, I don't think living in the mines would have been one of the problems for large size. Tolkien said in the Hobbit (I think) that even the large goblins went along very quickly bent over using arms as well as legs. Balrogs could probably do something similar at need.

[Kuruharan]

The issues with swords has always been a topic I wanted to discuss. To me it is like swords are aware of everything and even have a spirit. Does Tolkien ever adress this?

Now there is a topic that one can sink their teeth into.

The short answer is I don't know for sure. I'd have to do some digging to see if there is anything about it.

However, just some ideas off the top of my head...
Swords are often attributed special or mystical attributes in many, many cultures and tales. In many of the Norse sagas, for example, many swords have great mystical significance. It would not surprise me in the least if the Profressor gave swords special qualities in his own mythology. This type of idea about a special 'relationship' (but that doesn't seem like quite the right word) between a sword and its owner is quite ancient.

One can "assume" that it takes more then the weilder of a sword to make it "alive", I think a big part would be the marker/crafter/forger.

I think that does have a lot to do with it. Some swords are meant to be borne by heroes and others by mere foot soldiers. Heroes often have swords that are made specially for them, or make their swords themselves, or find them on a quest, or they were meant to find it.
Turin's sword, Gurthang, certainly seemed to have something about it alright. "The hatred of it's maker was in it."

Know what? 15 ft is huge! I mean, just try to get your mind around something big enough to hit its head on the ceiling of a normal modern building--that's only 8-10 ft there.

That's true. A 15' Balrog would make a little less than 3 of me. Myself being a dwarf and all of that. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] (And on other days a rather undersized human).
But seriously, 15' is pretty big. About as big as my house is tall, as a matter of fact.

And I think that there is a tiny difference between 6' goblin warriors and 50' balrogs trundling down small mountain passages.
Even though I think that 15' is a good estimate of a balrog's height, I still think that he had problems moving through some of the smaller passages.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[zifnab]

Originally posted by KayQy:
<STRONG>
And if one little hobbit could send Shelob running with her entrails between her legs, eight 10-15' Balrogs would definitely make Ungoliant think twice about continuing to fight.

</STRONG>

Good point, but I think everyone is mistaken about my Ungoliant vs. Balrogs idea. I did not post the idea about Ungoliant, in any other way as to give IMO, the balrogs an accurate size. I did not say "Ungoliant is the champion of the World", and all that. I know that. My "point" was that Ungoliant was so huge and terrifing that she had almost bested Morgoth. Yes MORGOTH.

Shelob and Sam was a good comparision. Sam had Sting and if I believe correctly, that he had the Phial of Galadrel. Two things Shelob had never encountered before(expect with Frodo earlier but at a distance). The phial seemed to cause the same amount of pain, if not more then Sting. I know the Balrogs had whips, My "point" here is that, Ungoliant KNEW the Balrogs and what they were capable of. Yes, the Balrogs probably would have bested her. But it would have taken alot, IMO. As I have stated earlier that 10-15 would be accurate. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[O'Boile]

I'm going to guess around 10 - 12 feet. With all the talk about size of Morgoth's minions, and Ugilant (probably spelled wrong) people seem to forget that size does not necessarily equal power. The witch-king is smaller than a troll but considered a greater enemy. Sauron is smaller than a dragon, but more powerful.