• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

In the ⚔️war of wrath, did the Valar fight individually with armies?

No. The only Vala to accompany the hosts of the West to Middle-earth was Tulkas for the purpose of wrestling and overcoming Morgoth. All the rest that came from Valinor were Maiar and Elves.
"Then the Sun rose, and the host of the Valar prevailed, and well-nigh all the dragons were destroyed; and all the pits of Morgoth were broken and unroofed, and the might of the Valar descended into the deeps of the earth."

I always thought "the might of the Valar" meant more than just Tulkas and Eonwe and a bunch of second-stringers. But I have no quotes to back up this impression.
 
There must have been some Valar component (at the very least Tulkas IMO). Here are a couple of points (there are others) that I have considered:
  • The fabric of Beleriand was severely damaged in the conflict. I don't think any number of Elves, Orcs could do that alone. Balrogs might be another matter, but they would need to be fighting something equally or more powerful to physically damage the landscape.
  • Morgoth himself needed to be extracted, without killing him. Again, not a job for mortals.
I don't think Tolkien had the stomach to describe a(nother) total war situation in detail, but the fullest account I know of is in the Later Annals of Beleriand (where Morgoth "came forth"!). This is from the pre-LotR legendarium (HoME 5), but it was used as the basis for his work on the Tale of Years (HoME 11) with very little changed.
 
I was searching over the past few hours for a citation that Tulkas alone of the Valar came to Middle-earth in the War of Wrath: I believe I read that more than once many years ago, but cannot recall in which book. I did not find it today.

However, I came upon this little gem, which though a non sequitur in the thread, is still tangentially related to the topic at hand. This is what is published as Letter 349, written about 6 months before Tolkien died.
​
I do not understand why you should wish to associate my name with TOLK, an interpreter or spokesman. This is a word of Slavonic origin that became adopted in Lithuanian (TULKAS), Finnish (TULKKI) and in the Scand[inavian] lang[uages], and eventually right across N[orthern] Germany (linguistically Low German) and finally into Dutch (TOLK). It was never adopted in English.​
​
I believe tulkas means “interpreter” in Lithuanian. (If there are any Lithuanian speakers in the thread, please correct or amend my statement so that it is more precise.) “Interpreter” is an interesting (and appropriate!) appellation for JRR Tolkien, and it begs the question: Does (or could) Tolkien see Tulkas as an imaginative reflection of himself? might it hint at some subconscious personal desire to combat and overcome evil? or is this merely interesting coincidence?

Elsewhere, Tolkien admitted his name was German in origin, and here he says TOLK passed into northern Germany, so perhaps Mrs Ehrardt, to whom the letter was addressed, should be forgiven for associating the name with Tolkien; moreover, it seems out of character for JRR Tolkien, who was so interested in names and their etymologies, to deny any connection when the evidence for some connection seems so strong (to a rank amateur such as I at any rate). There is a post in this forum in which Tolkien told BBC Radio 4 in a 1970 interview, “Give me a name and I’ll produce a story.” Surely TOLKIEN is an appropriate name for such a man!
 

Today's events

Similar threads

Back
Top