SPice for the Balrog-Wings Soup...(not seen this anywhere before)

[Olorin_TLA]

So since I've never seen anyone mention this, I hope nobody minds me saying this "brainwave". [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]


In the Books of Lost Tales and pre-LotR writings, Morgoth greatly desires the secret of flight. It’s mentioned quite a lot: how he tortures eagles, hoping to extract the secret of flight, etc, because neither Morgoth nor any of his followers could fly or knew how to. I beleive this is specifically stated in HoMe II, and probably other places.

I guess that rules out flight, and wings, because the impression gained is that Morgoth couldn’t make wings either: indeed, it is only towards the end of his reign that he discovers the secrets of flight, and so creates the Winged Dragons...no mention of creation of Winged Balrogs anywhere, and since they couldn’t fly before (because nout could) that in my mind settles that issue.

Of course, that leaves the problem of Vampires flying, but Tolkien’s views on Morgoth and his servants did change dramatically during and after writing LotR...


(In case anyone doesn’t know, Tolkien’s views on the Enemies, including Balrogs, were incredibly different before he wrote LotR. In the pre-LotR, Book of Lost Tales world, Balrogs were terrible foes and fire, but werne’t Maia (afaik) and though extrmely hard to kill since Lef Lords could slay them, there’s little chance that Gandalf would have had as much trouble as he did with his. During LotR, Balrogs changed in Tolkien’s mind. This is furhter shown that after LotR, when he was revising the Silmarillion, the Balrogs suddenly became much more powerful, and far, far fewer in number (around 7 he reckoned at one point), and they were now terrible Maia like Sauron. During these revisions Tolkien mentions Glorfindel’s duel with a Balrog, then crosses out the word Balrog and replaces it with Demon, reffering from then on to Glorfindel fighting a Demon, NOT a Balrog. Tolkien’s vision of Balrogs therefore changed from elite horde to extremely rare and practically unstoppable nightmares during the writing of LotR.)


Soo...what's this mean for me? Well, maybe "for me" is the wrong expression, seeing as we all ahve our own views as to the Wings Things. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
It would seem that this is indeed fairly compelling evidence for non-wingness, as nowhere in the Later Silmarillion etc afaik are there any descriptions/metaphors about flying...HOWEVER, becuase Vamps could fly even when this pre-LotR idea was floating around of torturing birds to gian the secret of flight (and may have sitll remained) it may not be a compeeling argument: Vamps are maia, as far as I know, and so are Balrogs, so even if Morgoth didn't learn how to breed/"engineer" flying creatures they still could have (mind you, originally Balrogs weren't maiar...but I don't think Vamps were either [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] ).

I didn't claim to solve the issue! This could be viewed as very inconclusive indeed, but on the other hand maybe it's enough to get you to belive in one side of the Balrogs-Wings Debate/War/Armaggedon. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

(Disclaimer: I haven't stolen part of your life making you read this post, it's a little thing you can think about. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

[Arwen1858]

Just because they can't fly doesn't mean they don't have wings! I'm not quite sure what I think of the issue, but just thought I'd throw that in.
Arwen

[Olorin_TLA]

True, but I was thinking that it wouldn't make sense for them to ahve them; the dragons, after all, didn't until the secret of flight was discovered by Morgoth.

[Aiwendil]

To be honest, I don't think this makes any difference to the wing debate. It seems fairly certain in any case that BoLT Balrogs didn't fly. But that is all that this evidence supports.

Nothing from the Book of Lost Tales can provide significant evidence either way on post-LotR Balrogs.

By the way, what chapter of BoLT is that from? I don't quite recall it - it's been a while since I've read the thing straight through.

[Balin999]

Hereby I state once and for all that I will forever believe that Balrogs had wings and that no argument whatsoever will ever change that opinion, unless that argument is found/brought in by myself. The reason is: I WANT to believe that Balrogs had wings.
Now you all go ahead with your next argument that is pretty useless because there will always be arguments on both sides and where no conclusion will be found.

[Arwen1858]

Ok, after going back and reading the part in FotR one more time, I believe Balrogs do have wings. I was leaning in that direction already, but I do think they have wings. Just thought I'd share what I think!
Arwen

[Lord of Angmar]

Balin, your statement seems to provide a precise definition of ignorance: unwillingness to believe in or take seriously an opinion that goes against your own, whether it is logical or not. I do not mean to be mean in this remark, I have just always thought it very important to keep an open mind.

As for the prior discussion, I have but one question:
Why would balrogs have wings if they could not fly?

[The Barrow-Wight]

Balrog wings have been discussed elsewhere in the general sense, so all posts here should be directed strictly toward the first post of this thread and its premise.

Also, no flaming! '... precise definition of ignorance...' is not acceptable. Keep a civil tone in all Barrow-Downs discussion, please.

That is all (for now).

[Arwen1858]

As for the prior discussion, I have but one question:
Why would balrogs have wings if they could not fly?

Ostriches, Emus, Penguins, and numerous other birds have wings, but lack the ability to fly. Just because a creature can't fly is not a valid reason to say that it definitely can't have wings.
Olorin_TLA, I am glad you posted that quote because I haven't read those books yet, so never read that before. So at least I know for sure that balrogs don't fly.

[Voralphion]

True, flightless birds do have wings, but that is because they evolved from birds that could fly and they still have wings although they are now useless. Since balrogs were maiar and did not evolve their form, but instead took their form themselves, I do not see the point in having wings that they cannot fly with and would be without a purpose.

[Arwen1858]

I don't believe in evolution, and Tolkien was also a Christian, not an evolutionist. So, if he believed some birds were created with wings, but without the ability to fly, there is a possibility that's how he made balrogs. I'm not saying that's the case; it's just a possibility. Maybe Tolkien didn't mean for balrogs to have wings. I think that this matter of balrogs having wings will be discussed as long as there are LotR fans to discuss it, and there will never be a set answer, as Tolkien obviously isn't going to be writing anymore.

[Iarhen]

Im gonna sound like such a newbie, but Im so surprised to hear that Morgoth tortured Eagles to take out of them the secret of flight... No wonder why Thorondor hated him so much... Were in the books is such a thing stated?

BTW... I know this is way off topic, but why and when did Thorondor, Lord of Eagles, died?

[Mister Underhill]

So at least I know for sure that balrogs don't fly.

No you don't. As Aiwendil has quite rightly pointed out, the old BolT stories are ancient history in terms of the development of the Legendarium and especially LotR. Olorin_TLA's inference is interesting, but not at all conclusive in the wings debate.

[Arwen1858]

No you don't. As Aiwendil has quite rightly pointed out, the old BolT stories are ancient history in terms of the development of the Legendarium and especially LotR.

oh, ok. Sorry! I know I sound like I don't know very much about it, but I've only read LotR and The Hobbit, and am about to start the Silm. SO I just figured BolT was supposed to be fact. So, did Tolkien mean for it to be more legend than fact? (by fact, I mean as in what really happened in ME) And what exactly do you mean by the Legendarium? Please help me out a bit!
Arwen

[Eurytus]

I am new to this board so apologies if I am rehashing old ground but I always thought that the fact that the Balrog had physical wings (as opposed to wings of shadow) could be demonstrated as wrong by a look at the what we can calculate about the size of the Balrog and the size of the wings.
Basically the Balrog could not have been much beyond 14 feet tall and the wings would have been somewhere approaching 100 feet wide. The ratios don't work for them to be physical wings.

But wings of shadow, fine.

[Noxomanus]

I'd like to mention that that are several other uses for wings apart from flying. All kinds of birds use wings to beat opponents in a fight or use them to make themselves look bigger and scare off enemies. Both these uses could have come in handy for a Balrog I think. Also,wings can be used as flippers or as a parasol or to hide chicks but that wouldn't apply to balrog wings i suppose...as for the wings loosing their use in flight in evolution....it would have been a great way to explain balrogs having wings without being able to fly.....but unfortunately,Tolkien didn't believe in evolution like several boarders,including me.It allways strikes me how christian a lot of you are.

[Lord of Angmar]

All kinds of birds use wings to beat opponents in a fight or use them to make themselves look bigger and scare off enemies.

True, but in almost all these cases, the birds also use those wings to fly.

The argument that Tolkien was not an evolutionist (which of course I fully believe) can be used to support either side, as one could assume that Balrogs would not have been given wings had those wings been of no use to them. I hardly think they would be used as a scare tactic, since that is a feature associated with non-predatiorial birds who mean to scary away invaders and predators, whereas Balrogs would already be imposing enough without wings and they do not need to scare anything away. Since Balrogs used hand-held weapons of flame, wings would have no purpose as a means of defense. Tolkien never describes wings at all, let alone their use as some form of defense or weaponry. Although I am not averse to the idea of Balrogs with wings, I think that, were it proven that Balrogs were incapable of flight, it would be entirely illogical to assume that they had wings.

[Olorin_TLA]

Arwen, the Book of Lost Tales was Tolkien's original "version" of the Silmarillion...however, a lot of things did change. Seing as Balrog wings are such a vague area, however, I still think it's an interesting quote, though by no means conclusive for either side of the debate. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

don't believe in evolution, and Tolkien was also a Christian, not an evolutionist

I haven't seen anything saying he wasn't, but if he did actually say he was, obviously that supercedes what I'm about to say.
But firstly it's perfectly possible to be a devout religious person and still believe in evolution...religious accounts and evolution don't contradict each other, unles you literally beleive the world was made in 7 days, and Tolkien didn;t beleive that (see my next point).

Secondly, in Letters someone asked if the Winged Nazgul Steeds were like Pteranosaurs. He responds that he hadn't had Pteranosaurs in mind, but that they could be similar (maybe related?) , and says that the "almsot mythic prehistory" being discovered of the time of the Dinosaurs was marvelous and fascinating. Anyway, seeing as he beleived, and was impressed by, prehistoric creatures, he must have beleived the wolrd to be ancient (unlike what the Bible says: hence the reason he couldn't have been a literal Old Testament guy). This, coupled with his general attitdue in his letters of non-fundamentalism (if he was one, he would have burned the Silm and LotR, firstly for having Eru as God...) leads me to beleive that he wouldn;t have rejected evolution.
Of course, we can;t tell for certain either way, but I think basing the argument of "Balrogs may have had flightless wings because Tolkien didn;t beleive in evolution" is an extremely flimsy argument.

Heheh...little Balrog chicks being protected by wings. Cute. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

Just because Morgoth couldn't make any of his creations have the gift of flight, didn't mean the Maiar he had corrupted couldn't. After all, neither the Balrogs, Sauron, Thuringwethil and many other creatures weren't of his making at all. Of course, eventually he unlocked the secret of flying forces, but by then it was too late. But before that, sure his followers may have had the gift.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Feel free to bash me, smash me, or just counter my argument, but this is what I believe...

Balrogs have wings, true, as seen in the Bridge of Khazad-dum. But don't you think that this Balrog, after being cooped up in the mountains for two ages, lost his ability to fly? Sure, Khazad-dum would be a pretty huge city for dwarves, but it doesn't have enough space for a gigantic Balrog to fly. His wing "muscle"(or whatever was it that made the wing move) deteriorated, hence, he couldn't use it as he fell throught the chasm...

And then I counter myself: What about Glorfindel's foe? He(she...it...whatever the gender was) didn't fly?

Wala lang!
->The True Son of Finrod, and of Amarie the Vanyar

[ October 08, 2003: Message edited by: Nilpaurion Felagund ]

[Lord of Angmar]

Nilpaurion you are talking about the movie, which is not a definitive answer to the question about Balrogs but merely an artist's interpretation. Peter Jackson also made the Balrog much bigger than Tolkien described, so his work cannot be construed as supporting evidence in this debate.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

...it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater...and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wing(wait)...

OK, so I was wrong about the wings...but the first part, about it being greater. Now greater means a lot of things; more powerful, bigger, etc. But I think: since the man form was the one being described, I think it was about it size...but then again, maybe I'm wrong... [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Wala lang!
->The True Son of Finrod, and of Amarie the Vanyar

[Secret Fire]

the "almsot mythic prehistory" being discovered of the time of the Dinosaurs was marvelous and fascinating. Anyway, seeing as he beleived, and was impressed by, prehistoric creatures, he must have beleived the wolrd to be ancient (unlike what the Bible says: hence the reason he couldn't have been a literal Old Testament guy).

What do you mean? Dinosaurs are in the Bible and Christians believe that the earth is old enough to have contained these animals at some point in our history and they died out. The world is ancient, but fossils aren't exactly as old as the carbon dating would suggest (I figured out the physics once, but I won't bore you here) there are too many variables and assumptions to definitively place a fossil at a certain age. As for the Balrog wing controversy, the balrog at least in Khazad Dum had shaddow spreading like wings, but this does not rule out any other balrogs from having wings, especially since maia could take any form they desired.

[ October 09, 2003: Message edited by: Secret Fire ]

[Lord of Angmar]

The Balrogs could not take any form they desired.

Where are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible?

[ October 09, 2003: Message edited by: Lord of Angmar ]

[Sharkû]

Yes, enough dinosaurs, please.

Seriously, I mean it.

[ October 10, 2003: Message edited by: Sharkû ]

[Elianna]

Sorry Sharku, I can't resist:
Lord of Angmar:
Dinosaurs are mentioned in Job chapters 40-41. 1st God talks about His behemoth (which I've heard Bible scholars say is like a brontosaurus), then He speaks of His leviathan, which is a fire breathing dragon it seems. Cool huh?

As for Balrogs: I personally don't think they had wings. Glorfindel kills one by making it fall down, go boom, and Gandalf almost kills one by making it fall down, go boom.
I haven't read much of the rest of the post, so I don't really have anything intelligent to add about Balrogs, sorry.

[Thulorongil]

I haven't posted much on this topic before, though it is something that I've thought about. I do not really know where I stand in the debate, however.

I have a couple thoughts to share, of consequence or not.
Olorin-you make a very good point that makes a lot of sense. Why would Morgoth do something that really wasn't necessary or beneficial? There have been many good suggestions as to reasons for him to, but one large one that I have to say is the intimidation factor. Throughout Tolkien's work, evil beings and people do many things to frighten and daunt their enemies, and it usually works pretty well. Animals in nature now--and people, too--use this strategy as well. It would certainly dampen most people's spirits or even discourage them from challenging a foe that appears to be very large and with characteristics that would give it an advantage. Wings definitely add to size and the way something looks (in a good or bad way) and also usually give the wing-ee (or being that has the wings) extra skills or power. What if you attacked a flightless winged but Balrog but didn't know it couldn't fly? Might you think that it would be able to attack you, defend itself, escape, or do something else with its wings? It would at least look pretty scary. But wouldn't it look scary already? (Look, I'm contradicting myself again! If I ramble too much, just ignore me...) A demon of fire already well-known for being formidable, and well, a Balrog! Would it need extra unwieldy appendages just to add to a quality it already had?

I have one more point to add in opposition to wings:

His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.

This is from FotR--there isn't much description in the texts I have of other Balrog battles. What struck me is that Tolkien, the master of words and their usage, usually doesn't say something needlessly. In this scene he used the words "like wings" in his description. Might this mean that he intended to only describe the shape and size of the shadow, rather than the Balrog? Perhaps if he'd meant to say that wings could actually be seen it would say "as wings" or the shadow and flame "surrounding wings" or "Gandalf and the members of the Fellowship could see that the Balrog had two distinct wings on his back and made mental notes to tell everyone at home about it." I don't know...maybe I shouldn't be trying to comprehend what went on inside the professor's mind...

[lore_master]

As an answer to the "If Balrogs couldnt fly, why would they have wings?" question.

Blarogs could take any shape or form they wanted, so in theory, they could have chose/made form that had wings, thinking that with wings, they would be able to fly.
but they did not take into account that no one could fly if they did not know the secrect of flight, so the wings would basicly have been useless.

A baby bird has wings when it is born, but they do not know how to fly.

Personally i think they did have wings but they do not know how to fly.

[Mister Underhill]

What struck me is that Tolkien, the master of words and their usage, usually doesn't say something needlessly. In this scene he used the words "like wings" in his description. Might this mean that he intended to only describe the shape and size of the shadow, rather than the Balrog?

As fate would have it, the professor used this “like-shadow” construction on numerous occasions. Some examples are here. I think the whole “simile” argument falls apart fairly quickly if you widen your scope beyond those few sentences in “The Bridge of Khazad-dûm”.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Er, I SO know that I am gonna be burnt at the stake for this.

Why couldn't the so called Balrog wings be FINS?

"Long I fell, and he fell with me. His fire was about me. I was burned. Then we plunged into the deep water and all was dark.... His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake."

Okay, a Balrog, a spirit of Fire no less, fell into the water and was quenched. He definitely could swim, otherwise he would not have died at the top of the Mountain. Now, if Balrogs have huge wings like birds or bats, I don't suppose it would be easy for him to swim in the water. But flappers like those of a penguin or huge fins like those of a devil-fish definitely resemble wings, and they help those creatures swim underwater.

Counter: some sea birds can swim underwater with their wings.
My Answer (for the fun of it): Wings can help to swim for some birds, but fins and flappers are much better for swimming. Besides, isn't it Pippin's itchy fingers with the stone thrown at the well that made the Balrog notice? He may have been knocked on the head while swimming underneath, and was SO peeved that he rushed all the way up to address the wrong. Note that he did not FLY up.

One other point for Balrogs to have FINS is that they are the servant of the Sadistic Biology Professor, Morgoth. Morgoth, throwing contempt at everything that looks cool, decided to further debase the Order of Maia by making embarressing FINs for the majestic spirits of Fire that have followed him. This may be the second vilest deed of Melkor, after the creation of the Orcs...

Balrog to orcs: You guys keep a look out while I go for a dip.
One orc to another: Da boss's feeling fishy today...

[The Saucepan Man]

Inventive theory, Hot n' Crispy ...

... but what kind of a crazy, mixed-up Fire Spirit would take a physical form adapted to a life underwater?

[Lord of Angmar]

That is the most original theory I have heard in the Balrog debate in some time, Hot n' crispy. However, I agree with Saucepan Man about the improbability of a Fire Spirit taking on a form adapted to aquatic life. Also, the description of the wing-shadows of the Balrog in The Bridge of Khazad-dum would, in your theory, call for fins that were disproportionately large, when you consider the average sizes of marine creatures relative to their fin-sizes. Also, historically, it would have been of no advantage for the Balrogs to have fins. They presumably first took their fiery form in or near Utumno, a place where fins would probably be of little use. The Balrogs were captains of Morgoth's armies, marching with the infantry in all of the instances described in The Silmarillion. Fins would probably be a hindrance in battle (or, if not a hindrance, definitely not a help).

It is definitely a fun theory, though.

the Sadistic Biology Professor, Morgoth.

Heh heh.

-Angmar