Do Balrogs Have Wings?

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

...to fly in vampire's form...

But what is vampire form? Is it a man in black evening dress, top hat and red velvet lining to his cloak with wings attached to his back, or rather a batlike animal life form (with maia spirit in) with a body specifically designed to fly? If the former, I'll accept wings on a balrog gladly...

Originally Posted by obloquy

Maybe when Frodo said it was not a Balrog it was because he happened to know, where Gimli did not, that Balrogs cannot fly, since Frodo had spent his time in Rivendell educating himself.

I don't think so I always imagined (stress on imagine, it's my personal feeling), that what Frodo felt is what Frodo felt - that is, balrog was different from what Nazgûl felt like (by feel) - former fierce and fiery, latter cold and dreary (like, I can tell the difference if I close my eyes and wet my hands, whether it is a water I dip my fingers in or, say, oil or any other liquid). I entanlge myself in words with the hope you follow my meaning - his knowledge of the difference was by heart, rather than by mind/acquired data. After all, it is stated several times that bearing the Ring Frodo grew more perceptive.

[Mister Underhill]

I'll hold you to that, HI, since the "vampire form" is certainly a bat or bat-like creature.

oblo, I think it was that old shoulder wound, and not a class on Balrog physiognomy that he audited in Rivendell, that told Frodo that the flying thing was a Nazgûl on the wing. (Look at me, I'm a poet and I didn't even know it.)

EDIT: Ai, cross-posting domino-effect with HI. Forgive the redundancy...

[Child of the 7th Age]

As far as the Chamber of Mazarbul -- there's no reason to think that wings would make a stitch of difference as to whether or not a winged or unwinged Balrog would be able to pass through the door. Why wouldn't a Balrog, like any winged creature, be able to fold its wings into its body? By the same logic, no garden-variety songbird should be able to fit through the round hole of a bird-house.

Mr. Underhill -

Everything that Tolkien tells us indicates that the chamber was very large. Certainly, a term like "cavernous" suggests a hall of immense proportions.

I agree that the Balrog would be able to fold his wings back. The real issue here is the wingspan to body ratio. It's my understanding that every flying creature in existence has a ratio of roughly 3 to 1 in terms of wings and body. Let's make the width of the hall smaller just to be fair, since we do not have specific dimensions. If the hall was 75 feet across instead of 100, that would make the wings 75 feet outstretched, and the Balrog 25 feet high. There's no way a 25 foot Balrog gets through that door, even if his wings (which he doesn't have ) are folded flat.

Also, a twenty-five foot Balrog doesn't seem to fit well with anything else we know. I believe we have just two references to how tall Balrogs were. One early passage in HoMe describes a Balrog as "no more than man-high yet terror seemed to go before it." Another description from BoLT states that the Balrog was "double his stature", 'his' in this context refers to Glorfindel. The latter quote would make a Balrog 13-14 feet tall. It was not so much the physical size of the Balrog as the fear he instilled and the shadow he carried along. Such creatures of 6-14 feet could get through that door, but their wings could not possibly have touched the sides of a "cavernous" hall when stretched out from wall to wall. Hence, the reference in the text must be figurative rather than literal.

Helen - -

I'll stick with Obloquy's answer here.

Note that the only real description we have of the creature is this:

it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape, maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.

Nothing about wings. Since flying things have a wingspan of three times their body length, wouldn't someone have clearly commented on those wings at some point in the Legedarium? They would have been so noticeable. Tolkien is very clear about winged and flying dragons. Why would he treat a Balrog differently?

Regarding time ill spent....don't feel bad. This is a subject I swore never to touch. I promise never to think about Balrogs after today.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Regarding time ill spent....don't feel bad. This is a subject I swore never to touch. I promise never to think about Balrogs after today.

Originally Posted by mark 12_30

You know, thirty years later, and here I am. Balrogs? I feel like a lounge-lizard. I can't believe I got sucked into this.

Wings, I tell you. Wings.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa

[obloquy]

And I agree with you both, Underhill and HI, but my suggestion is not a ludicrous one and the possibility that there is another explanation should at least weaken what others have found to be firm proof.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

There have been a few people who have weighed in on the issue in the thread but who have failed officially to cast their vote. I wonder if they are pretending to achieve a resolution and then losing their nerve when it comes to actually nailing their colours to the masthead, as it were, in the form of a vote. (Fordim)

Well, Professor, I'm one of them. I adamantly believe that they don't fly (after Morgoth's return, at the very least), but I'm still torn between the shadow-wings, or real wings made useless by something. And since the question is "Do Balrogs have Wings", I will not chip in a vote yet until I'm quite certain in the issue. So there.

Re Mr. Underhill's thesis: It was a bias on part of Frodo and Gimli: they saw wings (which may be real or ephemeral), and they assumed flight. It's nature: I see cigarette, I think smoker.

[Lyta_Underhill]

The real issue here is the wingspan to body ratio. It's my understanding that every flying creature in existence has a ratio of roughly 3 to 1 in terms of wings and body. Let's make the width of the hall smaller just to be fair, since we do not have specific dimensions. If the hall was 75 feet across instead of 100, that would make the wings 75 feet outstretched, and the Balrog 25 feet high.

Since this has become rather a technical argument, can anyone tell me what the air-speed velocity of an unladen Balrog is? (That is, assuming he can attain the air...)

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. There's no point in asking whether it is an African or European Balrog, as this is Middle Earth we're talking about!

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Hookbill: Melkor did not create Balrogs.

Oh, did I say "Create"? Sorry, I kind of meant 'invented' if you take my meaning. No, he did not create them. But he did take those Maiar spirits and entrap them in those bodies as he did with many of his... inventions?... Like that of Carcharoth, a spirit trapped in the body of a wolf that was made huge by Melko.

That’s just my thinking.

Lyta_Underhill: is that an African or ... Oh... Never mind. (Python ROCKS!)

[obloquy]

"Invention" doesn't fit either. Melkor and the Balrogs were Ainur, beings of the same order, and although Melkor was mightier, Balrogs existed independent of him. He corrupted them, and maybe played a part in their incarnation, but credit for the "invention" of all Maiar goes exclusively to Eru.

I don't recall any mention of Melkor "trapping spirits" inside bodies, but I am pretty rusty. Could you provide some text to that effect?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Obloquy, You and your technicalities! What I mean was the guise of the Balrogs was invented by Melko... can we drop that now? Thank you.

(Roots through silm) Well, I couldn't find it, but I did prove myself wrong, as my Carcharoth statement was wrong... i just seem to remember Melko trapping things in bodies. I suppose one could look at Glaurung, as it says "The evil spirit that dwelt within him" spoke, that would seem to suggest, to me anyway, that Melko trapped things in other bodies. I may of course be completely miss reading.

I am sorry about that misunderstanding Obloquy.

[Neithan]

From the Sil,

and Sauron brought werewolves, fell beasts inhabited by dreadful spirits that he had imprisoned in their bodies.

[obloquy]

Obloquy, You and your technicalities! What I mean was the guise of the Balrogs was invented by Melko... can we drop that now? Thank you.

Maybe it was his design, but we can't say for sure.

Well, I couldn't find it, but I did prove myself wrong, as my Carcharoth statement was wrong... i just seem to remember Melko trapping things in bodies.

You weren't far off. Thanks to Neithan's research, we have indication that Melkor did trap spirits in bodies.

I am sorry about that misunderstanding Obloquy.

Hey, it's nothing! I don't want you to feel like I jumped on you, I just like to keep things accurate in case someone who doesn't know any better is following along.

Edit: The quote is good enough for me here since it is sort of off-topic, but if that was a key point in the discussion, I would ask for you to find the original reference in HoMe. The '77 Sil can sometimes be misleading; see Underhill's article on Gothmog's troll-guard for a case in point.

[Mister Underhill]

If memory serves, Balrogs were "made" by Morgoth in early versions; not made, but merely "multiplied" by him later on; and in still later versions (which I think are the foundation for the 77 Silm), the Balrogs are Maiar (or Umaiar) who followed him into corruption. See HoME X to trace this evolution.

[obloquy]

Yeah, Underhill is right. I tend to ignore the obsolete versions when I post, which is probably unfair to those who have not gotten to the last few volumes of HoMe.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

It reminds me of Jesus' claims.

Way off, dude!

Hear me out! The way I see it, Tolkien left ambiguous clues about the Balrog that could be seen one way or another. Because of that, we have our own interpretations of what a Balrog should look like, or how a Balrog could travel.

Now I was chewing on that thought in my mind when it struck me: Jesus left some clues to his real identity, just enough to at least make us think of the possibility. He didn't overwhelm us with irrevocable proof of his Lordship. He made us free to choose what to make of him: a lunatic, a great teacher and prophet, or what he really claimed to be.

I know I might be committing Gorthadian suicide when I post this, but I just had to post it. Do what you will.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

The one thing that I worry about with this poll is that many people may be voting "Yes" because they would like Balrogs to have wings. I almost did. I really had to think about my Balrogian (My new word) theory. I remember having many a heated debate and I will admit I did sway this way and that to begin with. It was only when I re read Silmarillion last that in began to think about how I saw balrogs. I came to my conclusion by thinking; "Well, Melkor wasn't stupid. He wouldn't give them useless wings." Especially now considering that quote about no other creatures of Melkor ever taking to the air.

[Lindolirian]

Originally Posted by Nilpaurion Felagund

Now I was chewing on that thought in my mind when it struck me: Jesus left some clues to his real identity, just enough to at least make us think of the possibility. He didn't overwhelm us with irrevocable proof of his Lordship. He made us free to choose what to make of him: a lunatic, a great teacher and prophet, or what he really claimed to be.

Originally Posted by John 14:6

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Not too much ambiguity there... But just so that this doesn't turn into a religious debate (since the Downs is not the place for it), I won't go any further but will add a reminder: In the saloons and pubs in western US of the late 1800s, it was not uncommon to see on the list of rules (among things like No Guns, No Cheating, No Cussing) it would say "No discussion of Politics or Religion" because it almost always erupted into a fight. Not saying that that would happen here, but its still a sensitive subject.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I did not mean it that way, Lindo.

To believers, it is unambiguous, because we believe it--like someone believing that Balrogs have (or don't have) wings, and that all evidence point to it. But to others, well, they look at the same evidence, and they don't see it that way--like how the other side would react to the same quote. That is how I see it.

And yes, I know I should not discuss religion here, but, well, the parallelism is just too glaring.

So there.

[HerenIstarion]

The way I see it, Tolkien left ambiguous clues about the Balrog that could be seen one way or another

I suppose that is because, up to a point, it does not really matter, after all. The point is, the higher, the nobler is the creature in its 'normal' state, the more terrible its fall if it does fall

[Child of the 7th Age]

Since this has become rather a technical argument, can anyone tell me what the air-speed velocity of an unladen Balrog is? (That is, assuming he can attain the air...)

Lyta Underhill -

I would encourage you to look closely at this article that suggests a way to factor in the following variables: aerodynamic center of wing body combinations---lift, normal force, pitching moment, aerodynamic centre, upwash, drag.

Please note that this method applies for zero or near zero roll angle solely to balrogs with diaphanous wings. When predicted values were compared with experimental values extracted from the literature an accuracy of 10 per cent was indicated. This is illustrated for results in the angle of attack range of 20 to 25 degrees, and the ranges of experimental parameters used are tabulated. Such a method applies to both the straight or swept-forward trailing-edges of the wings, but has been found to be satisfactory for moderate trailing-edge as well.

For balrogs with non-diaphanous wings, please consult Fordim Hedgethistle's well known treatise "Vortex interference factors as Applied to Balrogs". Fordim's analysis takes the body-alone contribution (ESDU 89008 provides values for both First and Third Age Balrogs) and adds contributions from the wing (in the presence of the body) and from the change in body lift-curve slope due to the wing.

Hope this clears up any questions in your mind!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

The one thing that I worry about with this poll is that many people may be voting "Yes" because they would like Balrogs to have wings.

But what's wrong with that?

[the phantom]

The one thing that I worry about with this poll is that many people may be voting "Yes" because they would like Balrogs to have wings.

But what's wrong with that?

Come now, SP. Surely you know what is wrong with that sort of approach.

If you are someone like me who does not have a preference on the issue then you don't really mind people thinking what they want. But if you believe there is a definite answer then you do mind.

The fact is, when there is a definite right or wrong it doesn't really matter what you think, what you want, or what you'd like. Wouldn't you admit that there'd be something seriously "wrong with that" if I liked the thought and wanted to believe that Aragorn was a hobbit, though he is most definitely not?

Imagination is great, but it's not perfectly okay to let everyone believe what they want to believe about everything.

You can only do that when the answer is up in the air (or not up in the air, for you anit-wingers ).

So your opinion is probably justified in this case, but don't let it bleed over into other things.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

More than one hundred posts to the thread. . .

bwa HA hahahahahahahahahaaaaaa


*rubs hands*

[The Saucepan Man]

Phantom, just to clarify, my question was asked in the context of the topic of this thread.

[the phantom]

I saw that coming the day the thread opened, Fordy.

[the phantom]

my question was asked in the context of the topic of this thread

I hoped it was.

The purpose of my post was more for impressionable Downers who might take an on-topic statement made by an influential member and apply it to other things- a scary thought.

I thought that some damage control was necessary.

[Garen LiLorian]

Although Mr. Underhill's 'Gimli' thesis is one of the more interesting features of the debate, (to my mind) I have one small worm in that apple. The Fellowship, at that point, hadn't actually seen any Nazgûl since leaving Rivendell. It seems entirely possible that Gimli had never seen one at all, unless he was present at the Lonely Mountain debacle. Assuming he wasn't, it's pretty fair to assume that when he sees a big evil shadow thingy, he thinks 'Balrog'. I mean, it kinda reminded me of the Balrog. Not that I thought it was, just the description reminded me of it.

That all being said, I'm still on the pro-winger side of the debate.

[obloquy]

But what's wrong with that?

Is it fine with you that some people insist that Sauron was a disembodied eyeball during the War of the Ring? Or that the Witch-King's proper name is Angmar?

Good point, Garen. Combine Gimli's possible lack of experience with Ringwraiths with the Fellowship's lack of knowledge of Balrogs and I think that argument is effectively neutered.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

But what's wrong with that?

What’s wrong with it is that’s not the question. The question is "Did Balrogs have wings" and not "Do you think Balrogs would look nice with wings?" or "Would you like Balrogs to have wings" Silly!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Is it fine with you that some people insist that Sauron was a disembodied eyeball during the War of the Ring? Or that the Witch-King's proper name is Angmar?

Well, I do not presume to dictate how anyone should approach the book. Although, on a discussion board such as this, I would expect participants in any discussion on such issues to accept, for the purposes of the dicussion, the "stated" facts as we know them.

The question is "Did Balrogs have wings" and not "Do you think Balrogs would look nice with wings?" or "Would you like Balrogs to have wings" Silly!

Since it is clear from this thread that there is (as yet) no definitive answer either way by reference to the published materials, then I see no problem in people answering the question on the basis of personal preference. I did.

I will accept non-winged Balrogs if the proposition can be established beyond all reasonable doubt (in the way that it is beyond all reasonable doubt that Aragorn was not a Hobbit). If, despite such rigorous proof, anyone wants to continue imagining Balrogs as winged, then that's fine by me. Although, in those circumstances (and assuming that they were acquainted with all the relevant facts), I would expect them to answer "No" to the question posed by this thread.

Backatcha!

[Lyta_Underhill]

I would encourage you to look closely at this article that suggests a way to factor in the following variables: aerodynamic center of wing body combinations---lift, normal force, pitching moment, aerodynamic centre, upwash, drag.

Ah, but this opens a brand new can of worms! The Balrog (if it had wings, which I'm saying it doesn't, so why I'm going on like this, I can't fathom, except that it gives me a fine sense of the absurd..) cannot necessarily be assumed to have rigid wings and a rigid body. I suppose, if one wanted, one could open a spin-off thread, entitled "Are Balrogs Built Like Aircraft?" and even more elusively, "Can Balrogs Break the Sound Barrier in Flight?" both of which would assume a priori that Balrogs not only have wings but can fly in a straight line. There would, of course, be the dissenting school which bases their calculations on the flight of large birds and would perhaps extrapolate the difference between the flight of Thorondor and the flight of Gwaihir, thus determining the exact measure by which the size of the Great Eagles had diminished over the course of two Ages.

Then, there would be the splinter school of thought, which would spin off yet a third speculative thread, "How Badly Does the Fiery Whip Get Tangled up in a Balrog's Wings?" and finally, "Did Gandalf Smite the Balrog, or Did it Smack Itself in the Face with its own Weapon and Expire of its own Stupidity?" But all this is, of course, a ridiculous flight of fancy.

For balrogs with non-diaphanous wings, please consult Fordim Hedgethistle's well known treatise "Vortex interference factors as Applied to Balrogs". Fordim's analysis takes the body-alone contribution (ESDU 89008 provides values for both First and Third Age Balrogs) and adds contributions from the wing (in the presence of the body) and from the change in body lift-curve slope due to the wing.

Can I get this on Interlibrary Loan? You know, I never even considered the contribution of translucency in the equation! I must go back and tease my hair out some more and scribble purposefully until it all comes clear!

Cheers!
Lyta

[Michael Wilhelmson]

Just like to say that, just because a Balrog might have wings, doesn't mean it can use them. If the Balrog is just a corrupted form of a Maiar by Morgoth, then it might suggest that a Maiar is somewhat angelic in appearance. This would mean that a Balrog's wings would be bare and useless. In conclusion, IF a Balrog did have wings, they would probably be shriveled and barren, and do nothing more than to remind an unfortunate viewer of the demon's past status.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

[Gandalf: ]Long I fell [into the chasm of the Bridge of Khazad-dûm], and [the Balrog] fell with me.

LR III 5

According to Physics, their freefall velocity will increase with a factor of g for every second they fall. So, if I see it correctly, by the time they reach the bottom, they would have enough of a velocity to squash them flatter than a pancake (even if it was water that they hit).

Retardation of freefall due to wings, anyone?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK, I'm going to go ahead and call it. According to my fellow BDers:

*drum roll*

Balrogs have wings.

(That may or may not be functional.)

Next Up: "Can orcs repent?"

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

I've done years of pondering on this.

I started out as a pro-winger, using the 'if they don't, why'd Tolkien use the word 'wings'' argument.

Then I saw the movie, and thought 'hey, if the movie people think they had wings, they must have researched it clearly, right?'

I also thought since John Howe thought they had wings, and he must have scanned this in detail to do his sweet art, it was an option.

Then, in the last year, after reading the books a few more times, I went anti-wing. I can't remember my reasoning why. I'm sure it was legit ... it doesn't matter now.

Because here is the unyielding, unchanging, inarguable truth about Balrogs ...

Are you ready?

Here goes;

Balrogs have NO discernable features whatsoever.

That's right. And Tolkien wanted it that way, otherwise he would have been more clear in his description, just like how he was clear in EVERYTHING else's descriptions.

Imagine some smoke. Imagine slightly man-shaped even darker smoke in that cloud of smoke. Throw some glowing red eyes in the vicinity of the face. Light the smoke trailing off the 'headish cloud' on fire.

That's a Balrog. Yes, I personally think it's a solid being. Yes, I think the sooty, ashy movie Balrog's skin is a pretty accurate interpretation. Yes, both arguments for and against wings are good.

But logic dictates that if neither argument has a definitive, inarguable proof of being the correct truth, than neither of them can themselves be true.

The argument is irrelevent.

Thanks for coming out.

[Finwe-89]

Ok, Balrogs did NOT have wings, Tolkien made own pictures of his books, here's a link to a picture of a Balrog that as been made by Tolkien:


http://img-fan.theonering.net/rolozo...ith/bridge.jpg

[Mister Underhill]

That painting is not by Tolkien; it's by Ted Nasmith.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

Ugh ... Nasmith.

He couldn't resist the scales and tail, and reptilian feature. And who ever said Balrogs had horns? And yet EVERYBODY draws them with horns, or paints them with horns. And I see the "devil" influence even goes to that pointy end on it's tail.

Oh well, at least Nasmith got the size about right. But it seems awfully ... Trollish.

And it's scales look like the creature from that episode of Star Trek, you know the one, the evil puddle who kills Tasha Yar.

If it was darker and all you could see was Gandalf, the fiery mane, and the eyes and nose, it'd be better. That evil shadow is supposed to shut out even the brightest, Gandalfiest of light.

[Neithan]

And the invented adjective of the day is...Gandalfiest.
Seriously though that pic was really bad.

P.S. Balrogs don't have wings.

[Aiwendil]

Yes, Nasmith's Balrogs are not so good - though I'm very fond of much of his other work. Actually, though, I'm not that satisfied with a lot of Balrog art - this is one area where I think the Hildebrandts, John Howe, and Alan Lee are not up to their usual standard.