• 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

👁️Sauron and Durin's Bane Were Best Buddies

I do not think Sauron was commanding the Balrog. I think it might have been similar to the Sauron-Saruman relationship, except with more independence from the Balrog. Sauron obviously felt comfortable enough sending his soldiers there.

Even if Sauron was commanding the Balrog, why would he reveal it? He would want to save it until the greatest need, or great need, such as a siege of Lorien or Minas Tirith or something along those lines. Remember, he kept the Winged Nazgul secret until his attack on Minas Tirith.
 

Actually this is one of the quotes that concerns Balrog numbers (in some way) that Christopher Tolkien left alone. Although you added the word 'for' it seems (as the actual sentence reads: '... were destroyed, save some few...'), and Christopher Tolkien did not end the sentence after the word earth, as his father had.

In any case this passage was written before The Lord of the Rings, when seemingly thousands of Balrogs existed, and were created by Morgoth -- a concept which persisted at least into the early 1950s, after The Lord of the Rings was 'finished' (as far as being written).

HoME states that JRRT Tolkien had determined that the likely total of Balrogs left when Morgoth returned from exile with the Silmarils was 'three or seven'.....

While I agree that it seems likely enough that Tolkien drastically reduced the number of Balrogs in the later 1950s, the scenario is more complex than a brief reference might allow -- not that you said otherwise -- and I realize one doesn't have to delve into many or all of the external details in every post, or would want to! The idea of very many Balrogs appears to have started before 1920 even, and so was probably the idea in Tolkien's head for decades before he ever wrote the now famed marginal note.


With respect to the notion of 3 or 7 Balrogs, we have an alteration of a passage in The Annals of Aman (which alteration does not divulge the number of Balrogs in any case, but merely erases the impression of very many Balrogs), and but one marginal note to the same text, Tolkien's: 'There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed.'

OK, and given that this hails from the later 1950s (at least) it is arguably Tolkien's last idea concerning Balrog numbers. But Tolkien did not, in any case, revise all existing passages that still referred to very many Balrogs. Christopher Tolkien did, for the 1977 Silmarillion. In the following examples, the first version is the way JRRT left things, and the second shows how Christopher Tolkien revised the implication of very many Balrogs, leaving the matter vague in the Silmarillion.



The first description I quoted above (from the QS tradition) survived into the Later Quenta Silmarillion despite a number of other post-Lord of the Rings revisions to this chapter. The second example (Orodreth and etc) also was not revised -- with Tolkien even altering §143 of the chapter, but not the 'host' of Balrogs passage.

The third example 'survived' too, but noting CJRT's description under The Last Chapters Of The Quenta Silmarillion, it looks like JRRT never really got around to truly revising this chapter in any case (The Grey Annals contains 'Balrogs a thousand' §230). This is also possibly why 'save some few' still existed, as the end of the tale was never really fully updated, outside of a number of cursory corrections.

So I realize that one could simply say, well Tolkien just missed these references, or never got around to them, and given the marginal note to Annals of Aman he arguably would have altered each reference as he had done in the Annals of Aman. That's not unreasonable, but I think I have at least shown the scenario to be a little more complicated than a brief reference might allow; and I would add that we don't know if Tolkien was truly going to commit to a specific number in the actual narrative itself.


While this sort of reasoning makes enough sense, it's also a mixing of texts and conceptions which are possibly 20 years apart, as far as the text goes: in other words, the idea here is that it can't be 'three' when one compares a later concept (with a drastically reduced number of Balrogs) -- with a statement that Tolkien wrote when he imagined a host of Balrogs.


From Tolkien's perspective however, three, seven, or 'many' Balrogs even, was still open to him. Of course from this angle one could say very many things were still 'open' to Tolkien! simply because the legends of the Elder Days were still a work in progress.
 
Last edited:
Good points...

It's still doubtful there were any other Balrogs out there unnoticed all that time.

Agreed?
 
I think it is fair to say that there were a lot more than 7 Balrogs. Why you ask? Because it states that "some few" escaped. Few would have to be three, maybe two. And if Gothmog and Glorfindel's Balrog were killed, then that puts the grand total at 5 during the War of Wrath. Now if three escaped, they would not be referred to as few, because relative to the number killed, they would be the majority. Does 20 sound appropriate enough to refer to 3 as few?

Also how many Balrogs did Feanor slay I wonder.
 
Last edited:
My money is on "zero." I get the impression that they ganged up on him and didn't give him much of a chance to do more than defend himself before squishing him... :*(
 
He fought on long and undismayed, even though he was surrounded. And he was the mightiest of the Eldar...by far. Hurin was the mightiest man ever. If Fingon could give Gothmog a fight, wouldn't it be fair to say Feanor killed at least one?
 
Within the assumption that 'at most 7' certainly was Tolkien's latest and 'final' idea (the remaining references to very many Balrogs still awaiting correction, in theory)...

... then I think 'some few' is just a remnant of an old idea (given that we know it was written when Balrogs 'one thousand' were created by Morgoth). So in my opinion, I don't think one necessarily needs to factor this phrasing in. Ecthelion killed one, Glorfindel another -- that leaves five at the War of Wrath, perhaps four of which were slain at this time.


I've even seen the idea (which I'm not saying I agree with) that Tolkien was thinking of altering Glorfindel's Balrog to another kind of demon, given certain 'evidence' in a late text about Glorfindel (which I won't go into now). It's not impossible of course, but I tend to doubt this, given the long external history here, and the internal fame of this battle.
 

I would tend to agree with this.

I also don't see the slightest shred of evidence outside of total conjecture that Feanor killed a single Balrog.

"The mightiest warrior may be slain by one arrow."

The best evidence against Feanor slaying any Balrogs is that the best anyone, including Olorin (Gandalf), a Maia did, was break even, that is die at the same time as they slew their opponent, and that was in one on one combat.

Feanor fought 'many' at the same time.....

While Fingon held off Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs, and therefore apparently the highest in spiritual stature & power, he quickly succumbed when a second Balrog joined the fray.

Therefore, I find it highly unlikely Feanor did anything but hold off his own death for a while versus actually killing any Balrogs in such dire straights.

Sulimo; As far as Balrogs changing shape:

The Simarillion; Ch 3; Page 47:

'And in Utumno he (Melkor) gathered his demons about him, those spirits who had first adhered to him in the days of his splendour and became most like him in his corruption: their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness, & terror went before them; they had whips of flame. Balrogs they were named in Middle-earth in later days.'

This descrption matches quite well with that od Durin's Bane in FOTR. (Yes, Wings = darkness, but let's not hijack this thread on that point, lol) :*o

So, I think, considering that it's clear that evil causes Ainur to lose the ability to change shape (see both Morgoth & Sauron), that Balrogs stay in this shape forever.

And, they really didn't change size....

The darkness around them just grew or shrank in comparison to the fire within them, as described on the Bridge of Khazad-Dum.

They were 'man-size, but greater' - so, we've assumed, like Sauron, a height of probably 9-13 feet.

 
Last edited:
Let me just clear some things up. Dain actually did see Durin's Bane. Dain says to Thrain, "Only I have looked through the shadow of the Gate. Beyond the shadow it waits for you still; Durin's Bane".

We don't know where the other (at least) two Balrog's are hanging out. Perhaps in the Blue Mountains. Mount Gundabad? Who knows?

Nardor was the realm in the far south founded by Maglor leading the surving Numenoreans to safety. However, you may be on to something there Erestor. I wouldn't doubt that there was a Balrog or two taking part in Sauron's assault on Nardor.

Darth Bane was the name of a Sith Lord, in an entirely different universe.

Feanor was the mightiest by far, and he wasn't even fighting Gothmog until Gothmog came up and smote him. So I think we can assume that at least 1 Balrog died by the hand of Feanor.
 

1. Actually, I think it's safe to assume Dain saw DB, but the text does not precisely say that. It is entirely possible Dain just felt his presence there. But I agree, DB was most likely seen. The fact remains, however, if 'on the doorstep', then why didn't he join the battle, especially if in league with the Orcs Sauron had sent to 'people' Moria?


2. No interest in this Nardor stuff ~ no idea where it came from; but I'm guessing some fan fict.

3. I think everybody knows 'Darth Bane' was a joke. At least if they have a sense of humor. ;*)

4. We don't know there were ANY other Balrogs, let alone 2. We've seen the evidence presented already, especially by Galin. Mount Gundabad would be a poor choice for a Balrog to hide. It was the meeting place for the 7 houses of the Dwarves in 'ancient times' & then later the Goblin Capital. Plus, it was sacked in the Dwarf & Goblin War. One would think something might've been noticed.

5. I doubt it very much; I've already presented the point of view as to why Feanor probably didn't kill a single Balrog: the kill ratio wasn't very good one versus one. A Maia & two Elves only killed a single Balrog one versus one & all three died in the battle. Yet another Elf totallt unskilled in battle is supposed to take one down with multiple Balrogs assailing him? I think not.

 
Gees Bucky you just like to oppose me even when you agree with my points inside.

Dain saw Durin's Bane. No question about it. Why he didn't join in? Who knows. Perhaps he feared the Valar or the Eagles or something. Perhaps he didn't feel like risking the fight, which wasn't his and wasn't threatening him. Who knows?

Mount Gundabad a bad hiding place? What about Khazad-dum a bad hiding place? The most powerful dwarf kingdom. Come on, they hid themselves in the roots of the mountain as they fled in terror and I highly doubt they were choosy about their location.

Feanor was the greatest and mightiest Noldor to ever live. Doesn't that count for something? He fought long it says. I'm not saying for a fact he did, but it's within the realm of possibility.
 
I'm not saying Mount Gundabad was a bad hiding place per say; I'm saying it was a bad place to hide & stay hidden without being found, that's all.

As for Feanor, I think the evidence against Feanor killing a Balrog is rather overwhelming & has already been presented twice. Is it possible? Anything is possible when dealing with texts as generally 'vague' & unfinished as The Silmarillion was ~ and not published by JRR Tolkien himself. Heck, folks are constantly reinterpreting his own works these daze anyhow!

But, when looks at the fact a Maia couldn't even kill a single Balrog without dying himself, it's rather doubtful any Elf, even the great Feanor did that by himself when outnumbered by multiple Balrogs.
 
In the Qenta Noldorinwa of 1930 the battle with Feanor was fought on the plain that stretched to the feet of the mountains upreared over Morgoth's halls. 'There was the First Battle. Great was the slaughter of the Orcs and Balrogs, and no tale can tell the valour of Feanor or his sons.' Here Feanor is still wounded by Gothmog however.


At this point (again keeping in mind that the Balrogs exist in great numbers and are not Maiar), one might get the impression that Feanor himself killed at least one Balrog, even though it's not stated specifically.


However Tolkien would change the details here, especially 20-ish years later, and the slaughter is with respect to 'orcs and werewolves' (Grey Annals), and Feanor is slain later when he makes a tactical error and Balrogs become involved. Tolkien still imagined many Balrogs at this time (early 1950s), but as we know there is no mention of him slaying any -- just like in the Qenta even.


But again, especially if we are to imagine only seven ever existed, I would agree with Bucky here, as I guess I prefer to imagine that Feanor fought long and well but took out no Balrogs -- admittedly also because I think it works well for 'twice' as many Balrogs to perish in the War of Wrath as had been slain in the Fall of Gondolin (assuming that only two were slain in any theoretical, finished and updated version of The Fall of Gondolin, that is) -- which is 'only' four, but still.


At some point after these demons became Maiar, maybe Tolkien thought about drastically reducing their numbers because he imagined them as even more powerful than before (they were named 'Demons of Might' after all) -- thus one thousand or a 'host' of Maiarian Power-demons might be too much for the good guys?

Maybe.
 
It's far from "beyond question" whether anyone saw anything. "Only I have looked through the shadow of the Gate. Beyond the shadow it waits for you still; Durin's Bane."

1) Of course the Gate casts a shadow; it is a physical object in a lighted place, and there are probably few light sources in Moria at the time. Basically all of Moria is in shadow. When Tolkien is explicitly speaking of the big evils, he often capitalizes Shadow, so this case is indefinite. Given the immediate context, however - shadow of the Gate - unless a Gate is evil in and of itself, the shadow is purely physical.

2) If the Gate is said to have a distinct shadow, then if the Balrog is anywhere inside Moria, it is "beyond the shadow."

3) If the Balrog were that close to the Orcs, wouldn't they freak the eff out? The Orcs fled before it when the Fellowship passed through.

As for Feanor slaying Balrogs... He was great in spirit, but he was an artist, not a fighter. If he had ever been in a proper fight with anyone else of any account I'd lend more credence to the idea that he could slay Balrogs in a many-on-one fight, and indeed it redounds to his greatness that he wasn't just squished underfoot immediately. However, if Feanor had managed such a feat, I guarantee Tolkien would have mentioned it. In the earlier "many Balrogs" concept, slaying one wouldn't be a thing big enough to be worth mentioning; in the later "few Balrogs" concept, slaying one would have been absolutely a cause for massive props. After all, the Elves turned Ecthelion's name into a battle cry, and Ecthelion did his thing centuries after the demise of Feanor.

3. I think everybody knows 'Darth Bane' was a joke. At least if they have a sense of humor. ;*)
Don't you mean "Darth's Bane," the Balrog that killed King Darth of Nardor? XD
 
Maybe the Balrog came up after the slaughter of the orcs. And Dain was described as a changed dwarf, very grim and grey in the face after he saw Durin's Bane. And he speaks of his experience through the gate as in fear.

I think you are using your Maiar vs. Balrog argument a little too much. Gandalf was not a mighty Maiar. His strength was in wisdom. Feanor was the greatest of the Noldor in anything; speed, power, might, skill, anything you can think of. Yes, greater than the heroic Balrog slayers Ecthelion and Glorfindel. Feanor's majesty was such that even the greatest of the Maiar, Eonwe, bowed to him. Gandalf was also in the guise of an old man, which limited his power. Again, I'm not saying Feanor DID kill a Balrog. I'm just saying that it is well within the realm of possibility that he slew one before being killed, because of his might and skill and determination and fearlessness and fiery spirit.

Again, I think at least 20 Balrogs existed because of the phrase, "a few". They are spoken of as if the majority perished and a small portion escaped. That would not be the case if 2 escaped and 3 died. The wording wouldn't match it.
 

And again 'save some few' merely reflects the idea of a huge amount of Balrogs, even Balrogs 'one thousand', and exists in a passage written in the mid to later 1930s -- surviving within a section of the Silmarillion that was never really revised at any later point except for a few cursory changes -- which is not my characterization of the end chapters of Quenta Silmarillion, but Christopher Tolkien's in The History of Middle-Earth.


You are obviously free to feel bound by 'few', but others will not be, including Tolkien himself I would add. Christopher Tolkien likely chose to retain this for the 1977 Silmarillion because it was at least written by his father, and did not imply thousands of Balrogs in any case -- given that Christopher Tolkien did revise any surviving reference that implied very many Balrogs.
 

Hmm, this is an interesting point noting the existing texts. The Silmarillion includes the description: 'For Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind: in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and subtlety alike: of all the Children of Iluvatar, and a bright flame was in him.'

If I read the information correctly this description is taken from The Annals of Aman of the early 1950s. Christopher Tolkien notes that this praise of Feanor is not in Quenta Silmarillion (generally speaking Christopher Tolkien also used the Annals in his constructed Silmarillion). But compare what is said of Feanor here, by colour if you like, to description elsewhere...

... according to the Quenta Silmarillion tradition (as also in the 1977 Silmarillion): 'Of these Feanor was the mightiest in skill of word and hand, more learned in lore than his brethren; in his heart his spirit burned as flame. Fingolfin was the strongest, the most steadfast, and the most valiant. Finrod was the fairest, and the most wise of heart...' (Finrod was changed to Finarfin).

[the earlier version of these Annals (but still called The Later Annals of Valinor since there is an even earlier version) included praise for Feanor too: 'Feanor was the mightiest Gnome of all that have been, wordcrafty and handcrafty, fair and strong and tall, fiery of mood and thought, hardtempered, undaunted, master of the will of others.']

And here's what Tolkien added to the second edition of 1965 (in Appendix A), thus well after all these descriptions above were written: 'Feanor was the greatest of the Eldar in arts and lore, but also the proudest and most self-willed.'


Anyway, as both 'Silmarillion' descriptions appear in the same phase of writing, perhaps the very high praise from the Annals was to be tempered somewhat by the comparison beween Feanor, Fingolfin, and Finarfin -- which was 'retained' for the Later Quenta Silmarillion I (I say retained because a form of this had already appeared in the Quenta Silmarillion of the 1930s).


And granted the seemingly 'lesser' praise (but still great considering that arts and lore are huge in the Elven-mind, and Tolkien's mind as well I would add) could be due to a desired brevity here, in the Appendices...

... but in any case, as I say, it's interesting to me to see both these descriptions written at about the same general time, each from different traditions -- as they were imagined initially at least, considering that the Annals appear to be, in parts, approaching something more like Quenta Silmarillion in this phase.

Anyway, just a possibly interesting aside.
 
Sorry to triple post but, just to add...


If Feanor is the mightiest 'in valour', how then is Fingolfin the most valiant? or if 'in strength' why then is Fingolfin the strongest? Or if 'in beauty' why then is Finarfin the fairest? Maybe this is a matter of authorship and opinion: The Annals of Aman were said to be written by Rumil in the Elder Days, and held in memory by the Exiles, and parts remembered were set down in Numenor before the Shadow fell upon it.

Could it be that Rumil esteemed Feanor so highly? while another author rather noted the greatness of Fingolfin and Finarfin in certain areas.

Just a thought!
 
Perhaps. But I think it might be describing the virtues of the individual, rather than their physical attributes. Feanor was not an admirable character. Maybe Fingolfin is the most valiant because he was noble too.

Maybe Finarfin was literally the fairest and would never cheat. Ha!

Anyway, Tolkien himself states when Feanor dies that he was the mightiest of the Noldor. Quite a claim.
 
Anyway, Tolkien himself states when Feanor dies that he was the mightiest of the Noldor. Quite a claim.

Interestingly, this statement also hails from the tradition of the Annals as is not in the corresponding section of the Quenta Silmarillion.

Anyway, however mighty Feanaro was in arms compared to Finwe Nolofinwe, I'm still voting for 'no Balrogs' here -- especially in light of the reduced number, as I say.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…