How many balrogs fought in the ⚔️War of Wrath?

[Turin_Turambar]

It is written in Tolkien's late writings that there were no more than 7 balrogs. Does this mean that Morgoth had only 7 balrogs at his disposal? Were there only 7 balrogs that served Morgoth? So since 5 of them died in the fall of the gondolin, did only 2 balrogs fight in the war of wrath? I'm waiting for people who know this subject well and have knowledge on the subject to inform.

 

[m4r35n357]

Tolkien never got round to re-writing the SIlmarillion to support most of these "later" ideas. So they do not make sense in the context of any known published or unpublished (HoME) Histories of the First Age.

Those quotes are great for starting arguments though!

 

[Elthir]

Originally (in an external sense) there were very many Balrogs, but they were easier to slay and not Maiar. In my opinion one cannot simply use the very early Book of Lost Tales as a source here, as Tolkien's conception of Balrogs changed over the years.

"The early conception of Balrogs makes them less terrible, and certainly more destructible,
than they afterwards became: . . ." The Book of Lost Tales, The Fall of Gondolin, Christopher Tolkien commentary

Tolkien held on to the idea of many Balrogs for decades, it seems, but there is at least one note added to a text dated 1958-ish, where Tolkien writes that it should not be imagined that more than three Balrogs, or at most seven, ever existed . . .

. . . JRRT then made a revision (to a text called The Annals of Aman) to one reference which suggested very many Balrogs (the revision took out the word "host" in reference to a host of Balrogs) but he did not, for whatever reason or reasons, revise every existing reference to many Balrogs.

When Christopher Tolkien edited the Silmarillion for its publication in 1977, he altered some wording so that Balrog numbers were basically left obscure.

The textual matter is more complicated than this, but that's the quick version 💥

 

[1stvermont]

It is written in Tolkien's late writings that there were no more than 7 balrogs. Does this mean that Morgoth had only 7 balrogs at his disposal? Were there only 7 balrogs that served Morgoth? So since 5 of them died in the fall of the gondolin, did only 2 balrogs fight in the war of wrath? I'm waiting for people who know this subject well and have knowledge on the subject to inform.

I use to hold to many balrogs, but a debate on this forum convinced me of the 7. That is if Tolkien survived to publish The Silmarillion I think he would have capped them at 7.

 

[Elthir]

(. . .) So since 5 of them died in the fall of the gondolin, did only 2 balrogs fight in the war of wrath?

I know you go by the web sources, but I'm not sure where you get five here, as according to The Book of Lost Tales, Rog and his Men slew Balrogs (for example): " . . . and the number of Balrogs that perished was a marvel and dread to the hosts of Melko, . . ."

And Ecthelion slew three, Tuor five . . . then Ecthelion slays another (Gothmog). Next, the royal
house "laid on" and Turgon came down and fought with them " . . . and of the Balrogs slew even two score." And unless JRRT means something different here, "twoscore" equals 40.

Then you have Glorfindel slaying one (and any other reference I might have missed).

But again, in any case, these are not the Balrogs as Tolkien would later imagine them, and I repeat Christopher Tolkien's commentary here: "The early conception of Balrogs makes them less terrible, and certainly more destructible, than they afterwards became: . . ."

CJRT, The Book of Lost Tales, The Fall of Gondolin

🐾

Also, you have to leave one for Moria

 

[Melkor]

If you don't count Balrogs from early version of Fall of Gondolin, 2 balrogs are undoubtedly killed - Gothmog by Ecthelion and other one by Glorfindel.

 

[Elthir]

There is, as Melkor posted, later references to these Balrogs being slain by these Elves . . .

. . . and yet . . .

. . . why, in a very late text about Glorfindel (Glorfindel II), did Tolkien do this: " . . . a chieftain of Gondolin, who in the pass of Cristhorn ("Eagle-cleft") fought with a Balrog Demon, whom he slew at the cost of his own life."

Why cross out the word Balrog and replace it with "Demon"?

The text continues, including another reference to a Demon: " . . . from the wreck of Gondolin a Demon out of Thangorodrim, and so enabling Tuor and Idril . . ." And in the margin, Tolkien wrote Demon again: "The duel of Glorfindel and the Demon may need revision."

And yes, a Balrog is a Demon -- but not the only kind!

By this point, we have Orc-formed Maiar for example, referred to several times in earlier texts (see Myths Transformed, Morgoth's Ring). And written at the same time as the "Glorfindel texts" (see Last Writings, The Peoples of Middle-Earth), Tolkien mused about the Dwarves -- long story short, referring to Durin's Bane as a Balrog.

So again, why make the change to Demon in the Glorfindel account? Could it be that Tolkien --
who after all had written (at least at one point) that there should not be supposed more than three Balrogs, or at most seven, ever existed -- could it be that Tolkien was thinking about having Glorfindel sacrifice himself to a great (possible the greatest) Maiarian Orc-captain instead?

By Eru!

And what if the number was three? Well, we could still have Ecthelion, Glorfindel, and Gandalf slaying their respective rogs . . .

But Elthir, you wasp nest poking trouble maker, Glorfindel had been famous for slaying a Balrog, for decades and decades, do you really think Tolkien would change this?

Well, we all know Tolkien rarely changed his mind

Anyway, looking again at the early Fall of Gondolin, where more than fifty Balrogs were slain, Glorfindel does not stand out here as a Balrog-slayer -- at least in the sense that he alone killed many Balrogs, for example (at least as far as I recall in the text) -- but as a much beloved Elf who gave his life fighting a Balrog. . .

. . . and it became a famous fight nonetheless, and still do the Eldar say when "they see good fighting at great odds of power against a fury of evil: "Alas! 'Tis Glorfindel and the Balrog Demon."

Okay okay, the word Balrog remained in the early text . . . but why did this particular fight become so famous?

First, I'd say it wasn't just a valiant fight by any Elf, but "Glorfindel was most dearly beloved" and "Because of their love, despite the haste and their fear of the advent of new foes, Tuor let raise a great stone-cairn over Glorfindel ( . . . ) but the folk of the Golden Flower wept at its building and might not dry their tears."

If you are so well loved already, you get remembered.

Also, Tolkien actually notes -- in the tale itself -- that this fight was seen: "Now there was a deadly combat upon that high rock above the folk; and these, pressed behind and hindered ahead were grown so close that well nigh all could see, yet was it over ere Glorfindel's Men could leap to his side."

Well nigh all could see. And more love for our golden-haired paragon. . .

"Now the folk that had passed into the Eagle's Cleft and who saw the fall of Glorfindel had been nigh eight hundreds -- a large wayfaring, yet was it a sad remnant of a fair and numerous city. But they who arose from the grasses of the Land of Willows in years after and fared away to sea, when spring set celandine in the meads and they had held sad festival in memorial of Glorfindel, these numbered but three hundreds and a score of men and man-children."

Glorfindel gets a memorial! Again, much beloved, his battle seen by many . . . I think he'd still be famous and beloved if it had been a huge Maiarian Orc captain. Indeed a Demon!

.
.
.

Or not.

For myself, I think Glorfindel killed a Balrog

 

[m4r35n357]

Why cross out the word Balrog and replace it with "Demon"?

Author's choice? This is from the Qenta Noldorinwa of ~1931:

. . . while in the North Morgoth built his strength, and gathered his demon broods about him, whom the Gnomes knew after as the Balrogs with whips of flame.

and from the ~1937 Quenta Simarillion, just before LotR:

. . . in the North Morgoth built his strength, and gathered his demons about him. These were the first made of his creatures; their hearts were of fire, and they had whips of flame. The Noldor in later days named them Balrogs.

This is from the Annals of Aman (~1951), so just after LotR was written:

And in Utumno he wrought the race of demons whom the Elves after named the Balrogs.

I would describe that as consistent usage.

 

[Elthir]

And yes, a Balrog is a Demon -- but not the only kind!

So I know that Balrogs are demons . . . but anyway what you've (m4r35n357) provided are quotes in which the word demon and Balrog appear together! Which would have been the same as in Glorfindel II -- had Tolkien not crossed out the word Balrog and replaced it with Demon.

Of course, it could simply be author's choice in any case.

Then again, what difference would it have made to let the word Balrog stand?

Then again . . .

 

[m4r35n357]

I think the association is stronger than merely "appearing together" in the same sentence!

But then again . . .

 

[ZehnWaters]

I use to hold to many balrogs, but a debate on this forum convinced me of the 7. That is if Tolkien survived to publish The Silmarillion I think he would have capped them at 7.

See, knowing that there are a number of Maiar in existence, and that Melkor challenged all of the Valar and Maiar, I always put the number in the teens. I just can't see him holding out without more than 7, but anything more than 19 feels excessive with the implied population of Maiar.

 

[Elthir]

I think the association is stronger than merely "appearing together" in the same sentence!

I haven't said otherwise . . . my point was that your examples are exactly what one would expect; or in other words, there's no great reason for Tolkien (in Glorfindel II) to have crossed out Balrog and replace it with Demon.

Unless there was