Who would win, Smaug or a Balrog

chrysophalax · Dec 7, 2008

Much of the above post seems to me to be neither here nor there to the question, "Could Smaug (a specific Dragon) defeat a Balrog in a fight?"

Although as an interesting aside, are we then to draw the conclusion that dwarves have no souls?

Lost Tales Part II, p.179 "the number of Balrogs that perished was a marvel and a dread to the hosts of Melko, for ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men.". This refers to a version in which Tuor slew 5 Balrogs, so your assertion that only elves or something greater can kill them doesn't hold up.

Úlairi · Dec 7, 2008

YayGollum said:
It is true that a snake would normally obtain victory over a mouse, but what if the mouse is much smarter than the snake?

YayGollum said:
Towards the idea that a creation of Mel's couldn't be stronger than something Eru made, I point out that we don't know where dragons came from. There were all kinds of monsters in Middle Earth, made by who knows at who knows what time. They could have been captured and bred and enhanced by Mel. Or he could have constructed a shell stronger than most other people's bodies, then inserted subordinate Ainur type spirits. No problems.

Yes, but Tolkien irrefutably stated that any creation of Melkor's was automatically an imitation; the sub-creator cannot create; only change, and that change is usually evil (there is a quote for this if you want it).

YayGollum said:
The bit about the balrog's demon form always being shown is no large deal. It just says that if they used up their power like Mel did, they would lose the ability to change or get out of their clothes. It seems that the balrogs never wore their more conventional clothes and always went around in their demonic ones. Wearing a physical form didn't constantly use up power. This is the first I've heard of the demonic brand of clothing in Tolkien's universe, though. Is there some other quote that tells me that wearing that brand is a constant drain? Mel and Sauron just lost some of their clothes-wearing abilities due to losing too much power by doing crazier things.

Grrr, keep it calm Úlairi. Need to feng shui this statement...

That demon form was simple a visible hue that was inherent to all Ainur, and it did not diminish their power. Power diminished only when is was expended into physical objects. DO NOT think of Balrogs as expressly physical creatures; they are not. Thus the Balrog Label is just like being naked; but in a scary way. Hmmm, interesting.

YayGollum said:
Towards the bit about dragons not being immortal and therefore a race of lesser power, dang. I mean, um, the quote says that they have long and slow lives. Immortal is undeniably long and slow. I win! Additionally via semantics, one quote says that the oldest and most potent were immortal. It doesn't say oldest and slash or most potent, so the balrogs were merely some of the most potent of his oldest servants, which doesn't mean that they are more powerful than some of his younger servants.

This bit shows a good level of intellect Yay, but Immortal is permanent, the Elves become weary but they do not perish. Dragons do and thus become mortal. There is unambiguously a distinction there; which Tolkien evinces in Myths Transformed also.

YayGollum said:
Towards Smaug again, I see no strong possibility that Smaug would have joined up with Sauron. There is certainly any possibility at all, but I see little to be certain about. It would be plenty dangerous if the two teamed up, the evil torturer Gandalf saw any possibility at all, and decided to prevent it. What evidence is there that Sauron was even thinking about recruiting Smaug, besides that, yes, it would have been a good idea? The evil torturer Gandalf thinking that Sauron planned on it could just be a crazy inference of his, and helping Dwarves out is always a good thing. Either way, the surmization that Sauron could recruit Smaug doesn't really help much in the argument that Smaug couldn't beat a balrog in a fight.

You're right, but in a completely wrong way. You're speculating without evidence; I provided evidence that Gandalf considered it a distinct possibility and then speculated that Smaug may be seduced by Sauron. If you're going to make that point; you should provide evidence. I would be far more convinced you were going to kill me if your gun was actually loaded.

YayGollum said:
And towards your separate post, your evidence that dragons are weaker than balrogs is that dragons have been killed by humans, and balrogs haven't? You think that a balrog couldn't be killed by a human just because there has been no documentation of such a thing? But when others did it, they employed things like swords, which humans also have the ability to employ. Balrogs seem to go down about as easily as most. Dragons, as I already typed, require a bit more thought, luck, or magical boats and blinding headgear.

Yes, but here's a nice little bit of delectably bite-sized facts:

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

'Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly!'

Mithrandir supposed that none, and especially, not even Aragorn or Legolas could overcome the Balrog. Aragorn, the heir of Elendil and Isildur, and Legolas, a Prince of Elves? Perhaps we should get Gollum to tackle the Balrog next time; the next time he says "My precious" it'll be through a feeding tube.

Úlairi · Dec 7, 2008

chrysophalax said:
Much of the above post seems to me to be neither here nor there to the question, "Could Smaug (a specific Dragon) defeat a Balrog in a fight?"

I suggest you re-read the post then chrysophalax, I thought I did a decent job. Here's the short version:

Immortal > Mortal
∴ Maiar > Physical imitated creation due to sub-creator's inability to create
∴ Balrogs > Dragons
Smaug = Dragon
Balrog = {Balrogs}
∴ Balrog > Smaug

Quod Erat Demonstratum. Here's the quote again:

The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: X

For Morgoth had many servants, the oldest and most potent of whom were immortal, belonging indeed in their beginning to the Maiar; and these evil spirits like their Master could take on visible forms.

IMHO this quote is nitroglycerin; glyceryl trinitrate; dynamite without sawdust - so handle with care. It's DYNOMIGHT!

po⋅tent
[poht-nt]

–adjective
powerful; mighty: a potent fighting force.

Thus being more potent is being more powerful.

chrysophalax said:
Although as an interesting aside, are we then to draw the conclusion that dwarves have no souls?

Come now, mighty chrysophalax; you're just attempting to stir up debate here.

The Silmarillion: Of Aulë and Yavanna

Why dost thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and authority? For thou has from me as a gift thy own being only, and no more, and therefore the creatures of thy hand and mind can live only by that being, moving when thou thinkest to move them, and if thy thought be elsewhere, standing idle. ... Then Aulë took up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves; and he wept ... and the Dwarves shrank from the hammer and were afraid, and they bowed down their heads and begged for mercy. And the voice of Ilúvatar said to Aulë: 'Thy offer I accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of thy will.'

Damn Tolkien's beautiful. So yes, the Dwarves had souls given to them by Ilúvatar.

chrysophalax said:
Lost Tales Part II, p.179 "the number of Balrogs that perished was a marvel and a dread to the hosts of Melko, for ere that day never had any of the Balrogs been slain by the hand of Elves or Men.". This refers to a version in which Tuor slew 5 Balrogs, so your assertion that only elves or something greater can kill them doesn't hold up.

A cautionary tale chrysophalax which even yourself acknowledged, this wasn't the final conclusive version of The Fall of Gondolin which was published in The Silmarillion. This "version" underwent heavy revision and by JRRT as is now the version you see in The Silmarillion. Unfortunately, Tuor did not such thing in the final version. This version is one where Gnomes are servants of Melkor!!!Here's another of those delectable bite-sized fun facts in reference to that deplorable piece of "evidence":

The History of Middle-earth II: The Book of Lost Tales - Volume II - The Fall of Gondolin (p. 212 of my copy)

The early conception of Balrogs make them less terrible, and certainly more destructible, than they afterwards became: they existed in 'hundreds' ... and were slain by Tuor and the Gondothlim in large numbers: thus five fell before Tuor's great axe Dramborleg, three before Ecthelion's sword, and two score were slain by the warriors of the king's house.

Now there's an eye-opener!

YayGollum · Dec 7, 2008

Ack! You're fairly certain that you know what you're doing with the gun, but I only got grazed that one time! I have a loaded gun, too, but I prefer talking people out of their craziness. I could totally bring up all kinds of quotes, too, but I find it distasteful. Coming over here and trying to shoot me into submission? We've both got quotes. We both know our way around them. My way of winning is less bloody. No? A win only counts if Tolkien agrees with me? Nah. I disagree with that guy all the time.

Anyways, I figure that dragons only might count as a creation of Mel's. If they are something along the lines of what I mentioned (monsters enhanced or constructs injected with spirits), then they aren't the kind of creation that your quote seems to be talking about. They're made of stuff that other people made and given steroids and a new race name.

Towards the apparently as well as uniquely balrog brand of birthday suit, I am unconvinced. They sound fairly physical, to myself. Fire that I don't remember being described as especially different from the regular brand, smoke, and steel claws. Have they turned their usual as well as invisible spirit forms inside out? Sounds like another form of clothing, to myself. Otherwise, how could they be killed by regular old swords? Clothed, unclothed, inside out, or whatever else they're supposed to be, I see no evidence that staying in such a form is somehow impressive beyond its novelty.

Towards immortality, I still don't see that dragons aren't, since Tolkien only wrote that their lives were long and slow, which immortality is. Could not elves be said to have long and slow lives? Was there a dragon that died of old age? I don't remember.

Towards Smaug's possible recruitment, besides the facts that we can't compare Smaug's resistance to Sauron's entreaties versus the average balrog's anyway, we don't know how powerful Sauron's creepy persuasion powers could be, and we only have the evil torturer Gandalf's crazy opinion to go on, I already came up with reasons for why Smaug wouldn't listen to Sauron. You want me to type out quotes from that The Hobbit book as evidence of Smaug's character? But I have already assumed that we've both read that book, so why bother? Smaug was independent. He displayed no interest in obtaining allies. He seemed quite content with sticking around his hoard. Also, Sauron had been hiding out in Mirkwood for a while, and I have read of zero attempts to contact Smaug. He had plenty of time, and the place would have been easy to get to. I won't provide a picture of a map because I believe that we both know the geography. See? Gun is loaded, but I see no need to pull the trigger. Civilized?

Towards your, I would type, passable as well as bite-sized quote, the evil torturer Gandalf is a total drama queen, as everyone knows. He knew that balrogs were plenty dangerous, and he only really knew how great the evil Aragorn was. Compared to the balrog slayers of the First Age, I would doubt that any of those guys could handle it, either. Also, who is to type that the evil torturer Gandalf was unaware of a decent chance at coming back to life? His brain wasn't entirely settled when he came back and explained himself, anyway.

Towards the hero Gollum saving the day versus a balrog, I don't doubt that he could have handled it, if he had been any good with weapons. He was more of the honest as well as hand to hand type of fighter, though, so a balrog isn't really his fight. If the thing had his security blanket, though, he certainly wouldn't have run off like everyone else.

My short version:

Immortal = Mortal, since no matter how powerful you're supposed to be, if you can be gutted with a sword and somebody smarter than you comes along, you're just as dead

Dragons > balrogs, due to more intelligence, more weapons at their disposal, more armour, and more strength

chrysophalax · Dec 7, 2008

"The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #153: To Peter Hastings (draft)

But if they 'fell', as the Diabolus Morgoth did, and started making things 'for himself, to be their Lord', these would then 'be' ... real physical realities in the physical world ... But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation'. I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them.

Here Tolkien is discussing the quintessential concept to most myth and fantasy based on religious premise that created creatures cannot themselves create, they can only twist and mar that which already is in existence. He concedes that even if Morgoth were capable of 'making' things, they could never match the power of the Valar through delegation (delegation in this context meaning the passing of power or will from one being to another which Tolkien in another letter explains is inherent in myth - Sauron's power passed into the Ring and Morgoth did the same through his Ring - Arda). I am and never will be JRR Tolkien, but I firmly believe that if I ever got the opportunity to ask him this question I know what the answer would be. If we substitute Valar for Maia or possibly Ainur in the above quote then the dragons could never match the power of the Ainur (or Maia). I know that's speculative, but I believe what Tolkien in this passage is fundamentally driving at is the impregnable concept that sub-creation cannot create and thus cannot match that which already is; and you'll see exactly why below. Fëanor's Silmarils were works of art but were simply imitations of light of the Two Trees. The Two Trees did not 'create' their own light but generated the light already present in the world after the Flame Imperishable was kindled in the Void:

This is a quote from Post # 38. Aule was, I believe on the same level as Melkor, so why then would Aule be able to create and instill a soul into said creation if Melkor could not? Again, if you bring up a point that has little to do directly with Smaug or balrogs, expect to be challenged!

Also, thank you for the definition of the word "potent". I'm sure I would never have understood it on my own.

The point I wish to reinforce here is the intelligence of Dragons. Not only can they reason, but then are also capable of wielding magick, in much the same way Saruman did. A highly intelligent animal, which the disposition of a rabid tyrannosaurus which, incidently, could fly is a terrifying proposition at the best of times. What would Sauron have had to offer said beastie in order to recruit him? He already had a beautiful dwarven horde and a lovely cavern, what else would he need? A lifetime supply of villagers would've been dandy, but hardly enough to lure him from his lair. He was far too sly and suspicious for that.

In the end, it's been established both Smaug and any balrog could be killed and indeed, were killed by something other than each other. What this discussion amounts to is: who had the greater "fire power" between the two? My bet would be on Smaug because of his intelligence primarily. Balrogs overall seem to have been only soldiers, at best. Granted they were leaders, but over what? Orcs, werewolves? Pffft... Plus, do they actively seek out confrontation unless ordered to, or awakened from whatever dark pit they were hiding in? Not that I know of.

Smaug, on the other hand, saw something he wanted, swooped in and grabbed it, like all dragons...aggression and death personified.

Úlairi · Dec 7, 2008

YayGollum said:
Ack! You're fairly certain that you know what you're doing with the gun, but I only got grazed that one time! I have a loaded gun, too, but I prefer talking people out of their craziness. I could totally bring up all kinds of quotes, too, but I find it distasteful. Coming over here and trying to shoot me into submission? We've both got quotes. We both know our way around them. My way of winning is less bloody. No? A win only counts if Tolkien agrees with me? Nah. I disagree with that guy all the time.

You've got quotes??? I highly doubt that Yay, wanna know why? If there were any quotes about dragons being more powerful than Balrogs; I would have found them by now as I spent three hours last night going through a myriad of Tolkien's works looking for that very thing. If I had found one, I would have posted it! The next time Gollum rolls his eyes, the Balrog's going to tear them out of his skull!

YayGollum said:
Anyways, I figure that dragons only might count as a creation of Mel's. If they are something along the lines of what I mentioned (monsters enhanced or constructs injected with spirits), then they aren't the kind of creation that your quote seems to be talking about. They're made of stuff that other people made and given steroids and a new race name.

The dragons may have been Maiar INITIALLY or have been 'injected' with lower spirits. Their descendants however, would not have been. Here's another one of those dastardly quotes:

The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: Text VIII

But again - would Eru provide fëar for such creatures? For the Eagles etc. perhaps. But not for Orcs. ...

... They had little or no will when not actually 'attended to' by the mind of Sauron.

Tolkien, as aforementioned with Aulë and his "sub-creation" of the Naugrim, refers to "sub-created" beings being incapable of true volition without the complete direction of their "sub-creator". These creatures would have no fëar due to procreation:

The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: VIII

Melkor corrupted many spirits - some great, as Sauron, or less so, as Balrogs. The least could have been primitive (and much more powerful and perilous) Orcs; but by practising when embodied procreation they would (cf. Melian) [become] more and more earthbound, unable to return to spirit-state (even demon-form), until released by death (killing) , and they would dwindle in force.

And the original Maiar themselves would "dwindle in force"!!! Need any more be said???

YayGollum said:
Towards the apparently as well as uniquely balrog brand of birthday suit, I am unconvinced. They sound fairly physical, to myself. Fire that I don't remember being described as especially different from the regular brand, smoke, and steel claws. Have they turned their usual as well as invisible spirit forms inside out? Sounds like another form of clothing, to myself. Otherwise, how could they be killed by regular old swords? Clothed, unclothed, inside out, or whatever else they're supposed to be, I see no evidence that staying in such a form is somehow impressive beyond its novelty.

This bit I'm impressed with. The Balrog arguably must have taken some physical form; you're absolutely right... but only to an extent.

The Silmarillion: Ainulindalë

Now the Valar took to themselves shape and hue; and because they were drawn into the World by love of the Children of Ilúvatar, for whom they hoped, they took shape after that manner which they had beheld in the Vision of Ilúvatar, save only in majesty and splendour. Moreover their shape comes of their knowledge of the visible World, rather than the World itself; and they need it not, save only as we use raiment, and yet we may be naked and suffer no loss of our being.

Balrogs raiment or hue was their demon-form and they thus suffered no loss to their being with only one exception; Morgoth expended large quantities of his being in their subjugation and their wills were consequently dominated by his own (I can provide a quote for this if you want it). It was through procreation (and do not forget that although being a Great Dragon; Smaug was still of the brood of Glaurung) that the process of their potency began to dwindle. Essentially this entails their 'weakening' which explains why Smaug was the last of the 'Great Dragons' implying that there were dragons afterward, but none of the same potency or stature and my personal favourite: Shelob - last child of Ungoliant; who, unlike her mother; was incapable of consuming light which would have been frightfully helpful in her pursuit of Frodo through Cirith Ungol.

YayGollum said:
Towards immortality, I still don't see that dragons aren't, since Tolkien only wrote that their lives were long and slow, which immortality is. Could not elves be said to have long and slow lives? Was there a dragon that died of old age? I don't remember.

I'll repeat myself, immortality is not long; it is infinite - a long life is NOT an immortal one.

YayGollum said:
Towards Smaug's possible recruitment, besides the facts that we can't compare Smaug's resistance to Sauron's entreaties versus the average balrog's anyway, we don't know how powerful Sauron's creepy persuasion powers could be, and we only have the evil torturer Gandalf's crazy opinion to go on...

LOL. You're one crazy, funny guy Yay...

YayGollum said:
I already came up with reasons for why Smaug wouldn't listen to Sauron. You want me to type out quotes from that The Hobbit book as evidence of Smaug's character? But I have already assumed that we've both read that book, so why bother? Smaug was independent. He displayed no interest in obtaining allies. He seemed quite content with sticking around his hoard. Also, Sauron had been hiding out in Mirkwood for a while, and I have read of zero attempts to contact Smaug. He had plenty of time, and the place would have been easy to get to. I won't provide a picture of a map because I believe that we both know the geography. See? Gun is loaded, but I see no need to pull the trigger. Civilized?

Evidence of Smaug's character. Smaug coveted gold like a woman looking at a 30 or 40 carat diamond - she'll do anything for it; even marry you! Sauron would only have to bribe Smaug with untold riches and Smaug would cry out: "Oh Sauron, you've made me the happiest girl in the world!" (jokes people, just jokes - women are awesome). I want you to pull the trigger, go get me some quotes and I'll be far more inclined to listen to a more informed opinion. Are you a Uni student? Any claim or point made must be backed up with evidence. My Smaug statement above; though not backed up with evidence is inherently obvious; but I'll play along as well if you want me to. I'm just sick of typing the damn things out!!!

YayGollum said:
Towards your, I would type, passable as well as bite-sized quote, the evil torturer Gandalf is a total drama queen, as everyone knows. He kinew that balrogs were plenty dangerous, and he only really knew how great the evil Aragorn was. Compared to the balrog slayers of the First Age, I would doubt that any of those guys could handle it, either. Also, who is to type that the evil torturer Gandalf was unaware of a decent chance at coming back to life? His brain wasn't entirely settled when he came back and explained himself, anyway.

We had chrysophalax coming out with all guns blazing with a faulty quote from The Book of Lost Tales: Volume II about Tuor; a man who accomplished very little in comparison to Aragorn in my personal opinion. We have some big hostility here for the Wizard who said this about your beloved:

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - The Shadow of the Past

'What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!'
'Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need.' ...
...'He deserves death.'
'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.'

YayGollum said:
Towards the hero Gollum saving the day versus a balrog, I don't doubt that he could have handled it, if he had been any good with weapons. He was more of the honest as well as hand to hand type of fighter, though, so a balrog isn't really his fight. If the thing had his security blanket, though, he certainly wouldn't have run off like everyone else.

My short version:

Immortal = Mortal, since no matter how powerful you're supposed to be, if you can be gutted with a sword and somebody smarter than you comes along, you're just as dead

Dragons > balrogs, due to more intelligence, more weapons at their disposal, more armour, and more strength

Well, from what I've written above based on the writings of Tolkien, I can't make that conclusion as it is contrary and contradictory to what Tolkien intended. The next time Gollum screamed "My precious!" it would sound something like "Mmmm prshush".

Alcuin · Dec 7, 2008

Aulë did not create creatures with souls, but automatons. Only when Eru reprimanded him, and Aulë, weeping, prepared to destroy them, did the Fathers of the Dwarves recoil in terror: Eru granted them souls in recognition of repentance and atonement on the part of Aulë.

No Vala or Maia could create souls: only Eru could do that.

Balrogs were Umaiar – dark Maiar – literally, demons, fallen angelic powers in rebellion against their Maker. Sauron was, quite literally, an Umaia. What you are asking is whether a dragon, a creature of Arda, was greater or lesser in power than one of the incarnate fallen angelic powers.

If, as might have been the case, one of the Umaiar inhabited the body of a dragon, as seemed to have been the case with Carcharoth and with Hound-Sauron, or if one of them took the form of a dragon (as it was with the Maia, Huan the Hound; or even with the Man, as he seemed, Gandalf), then that would seem to me another situation entirely.

As was pointed out in the beginning of the thread, Maiar might be vanquished by Incarnates: Sauron was vanquished by Elendil and Gil-galad, Gothmog by Ecthelion, and another balrog by Glorfindel; but the Incarnates could also vanquish dragons. Logically, then, Incarnates were potentially the most powerful of the three kinds: Maiar, dragons, and Elves & Men. Maiar were of differing power, some greater and some lesser, as were the Valar. But posing the question, “If Jack can beat Bob, and Jack can beat Bill, is Bob stronger or is Bill?” is not a question that can be answered based upon that information. Something else has to be considered.

I suggest that you restrict the argument to whether Durin’s Bane might have been vanquished by Smaug. Bear in mind that Durin’s Bane might have found a good blast of dragon fire refreshing. And of course, if he also had wings - and might even fly - that would take away another of Smaug’s advantages...

-|-

Added:

Belegûr said:
Morgoth expended large quantities of his being in their subjugation and their wills were consequently dominated by his own (I can provide a quote for this if you want it).

Yes, please. I am unfortunately severely time-limited at this point in life, and that would be helpful. Thanks. (I think we cross-posted. The salt mines of Núrnen beckon; I can hear the orc-drivers cracking their whips even as I type.)

Úlairi · Dec 7, 2008

chrysophalax said:
This is a quote from Post # 38. Aule was, I believe on the same level as Melkor, so why then would Aule be able to create and instill a soul into said creation if Melkor could not? Again, if you bring up a point that has little to do directly with Smaug or balrogs, expect to be challenged!

AULË NEVER GAVE THE DWARVES SOULS!!! IF YOU'D KINDLY READ POST # 43 AGAIN!!!

The Silmarillion: Of Aulë and Yavanna

Why dost thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and authority? For thou has from me as a gift thy own being only, and no more, and therefore the creatures of thy hand and mind can live only by that being, moving when thou thinkest to move them, and if thy thought be elsewhere, standing idle. ... Then Aulë took up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves; and he wept ... and the Dwarves shrank from the hammer and were afraid, and they bowed down their heads and begged for mercy. And the voice of Ilúvatar said to Aulë: 'Thy offer I accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of thy will.'

Eru "instilled" the souls into the Dwarves, NOT AULË!!! Fundamentally, Aulë created the physical beings of the Dwarves, but they were robots; incapable of acting freely of their own volition. Eru gave the Dwarves the souls which is why the flinched when Aulë raised his hammer to smite them. Here another little bite-sized quote from Myths Transformed.

The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: Text X

Melkor was impotent to produce any living thing, but skilled in the corruption of things that did not proceed from himself, if he could dominate them. But if he had indeed attempted to make creatures of his own in imitation of mockery of the Incarnates, he would, like Aulë, only have suceeded in producing puppets: his creatures would have acted only while the attention of his will was upon them, and they would have shown no reluctance to execute any command of his, even if it were to destroy themselves.

So:
(1) Melkor was impotent (which means he wasn't powerful enough; not that he couldn't get it up) to create living beings.
(2) If he had, like Aulë, he would have created puppets; automatons; robots; zombies whatever - creatures incapable of acting freely (non-existential).
(3) As they were zombies they had no will, and thus would have obeyed any command; even if it were suicide.

So, Melkor was incapable of producing living things with souls, as was Aulë. If they did, then these creatures would be bereft of choice, free will, soul, spirit, sentience or conscience.

Hope that clears it up!!!

chrysophalax said:
Also, thank you for the definition of the word "potent". I'm sure I would never have understood it on my own.

Sorry mate, it justs seems as though the post about the potency of balrogs was completely ignored by both you and Yay. It's... frustrating for no lack whatsoever of another word...

chrysophalax said:
The point I wish to reinforce here is the intelligence of Dragons. Not only can they reason, but then are also capable of wielding magick, in much the same way Saruman did. A highly intelligent animal, which the disposition of a rabid tyrannosaurus which, incidently, could fly is a terrifying proposition at the best of times. What would Sauron have had to offer said beastie in order to recruit him? He already had a beautiful dwarven horde and a lovely cavern, what else would he need? A lifetime supply of villagers would've been dandy, but hardly enough to lure him from his lair. He was far too sly and suspicious for that.

Sauron: "Gold!"
Smaug: "Where? Where? For the love of Morgoth where???"
Sauron: "Dude, you have a problem..."

Lets not forget that Smaug was a soldier in the army of Morgoth, oft commanded by Sauron in different respects. All Sauron need do is pull a D i c k Cheney and enact the 25th Amendment: Sauron, the VP has become the President! Hail to the chief!

chrysophalax said:
In the end, it's been established both Smaug and any balrog could be killed and indeed, were killed by something other than each other. What this discussion amounts to is: who had the greater "fire power" between the two? My bet would be on Smaug because of his intelligence primarily. Balrogs overall seem to have been only soldiers, at best. Granted they were leaders, but over what? Orcs, werewolves? Pffft... Plus, do they actively seek out confrontation unless ordered to, or awakened from whatever dark pit they were hiding in? Not that I know of.

Smaug, on the other hand, saw something he wanted, swooped in and grabbed it, like all dragons...aggression and death personified.

My argument is not based on pseudo-fallacious concepts like this one. You'll never determine who had greater "fire-power"; you'll never determine who was more aegile, manouverable or swift. What can be determined, is where these creatures are on a hierarchical construct.

Again, I will re-iterate:

Balrogs > Dragons
Thus, Balrog > Smaug.

Úlairi · Dec 8, 2008

Ha! I was writing this over a few hours. I go and come back to it and you've beat me to the punch in some respects. Hail and well met, Alcuin!!!

Alcuin said:
Aulë did not create creatures with souls, but automatons. Only when Eru reprimanded him, and Aulë, weeping, prepared to destroy them, did the Fathers of the Dwarves recoil in terror: Eru granted them souls in recognition of repentance and atonement on the part of Aulë.

No Vala or Maia could create souls: only Eru could do that.

THANK YOU!!! *dances wildly*

Alcuin said:
Balrogs were Umaiar – dark Maiar – literally, demons, fallen angelic powers in rebellion against their Maker. Sauron was, quite literally, an Umaia. What you are asking is whether a dragon, a creature of Arda, was greater or lesser in power than one of the incarnate fallen angelic powers.

Umaiar, I forgot this term. Well researched Alcuin. Perhaps you could refer me to that...

As for the Dragons, I have no personal doubt whatsoever that Glaurung was a Umaia. I have reservations about Smaug but it appears as though he was; due to this insufferable "intelligence" argument these two seem to perpetuate.

Alcuin said:
If, as might have been the case, one of the Umaiar inhabited the body of a dragon, as seemed to have been the case with Carcharoth and with Hound-Sauron, or if one of them took the form of a dragon (as it was with the Maia, Huan the Hound; or even with the Man, as he seemed, Gandalf), then that would seem to me another situation entirely.

EXACTLY. The Istari are a magnificent example. Another example somewhere in Myths Transformed is that of Melian, who, by giving birth to Lúthien, by procreating, also become more earthbound and thus "dwindled in force".

Alcuin said:
As was pointed out in the beginning of the thread, Maiar might be vanquished by Incarnates: Sauron was vanquished by Elendil and Gil-galad, Gothmog by Ecthelion, and another balrog by Glorfindel; but the Incarnates could also vanquish dragons. Logically, then, Incarnates were potentially the most powerful of the three kinds: Maiar, dragons, and Elves & Men. Maiar were of differing power, some greater and some lesser, as were the Valar. But posing the question, “If Jack can beat Bob, and Jack can beat Bill, is Bob stronger or is Bill?” is not a question that can be answered based upon that information. Something else has to be considered.

Yes, but the Incarnates never returned to physical form as did Sauron; due to their immortality. My discussion is on the nature of their inherent stature and power. Undeniably Immortals were slain by mortals; but the Sauron case is different in the sense that if it had been any other finger Sauron would've crushed Isildur's head - the inherent flaw there was his dependence on the Ring. The formulaic responses of mine are simple: the more earthbound they become; the easier it is for them to be slain. Gothmog required an Elf, the first of Eru's Children; to be slain. No Balrog has been slain by anything less than an Eldar. Contrarily we see Dragons slain by Mortals throughout the history of Middle-earth. Gandalf also acknowledged that even Aragorn, arguably the greatest of Mortal Men of his time; was incapable of overpowering a Balrog.

Alcuin said:
I suggest that you restrict the argument to whether Durin’s Bane might have been vanquished by Smaug. Bear in mind that Durin’s Bane might have found a good blast of dragon fire refreshing. And of course, if he also had wings - and might even fly - that would take away another of Smaug’s advantages...

You and I have been on song up until this point. If I can establish that ALL BALROGS ARE GREATER THAN DRAGONS; THUS A BALROG IS GREATER THAN SMAUG. Quod erat demonstratum.

Alcuin said:
-|-

Added:

Yes, please. I am unfortunately severely time-limited at this point in life, and that would be helpful. Thanks. (I think we cross-posted. The salt mines of Núrnen beckon; I can hear the orc-drivers cracking their whips even as I type.)

Here's your quote mate:

The History of Middle-earth X: Morgoth's Ring - Myths Transformed: Texts VI, VII & VIII

VI: But Melkor had already progressed some way towards becoming 'the Morgoth. a tyrant (or central tyranny and will), + his agents'. Only the total contained the old power of the complete Melkor; so that if 'the Morgoth' could be reached or temporarily separated from his agents he was much more nearly controllable and on a power-level with the Valar. ... Both are amazed: Manwë to perceive the decrease in Melkor as a person...

VII: Eventually he also squandered his power (of being) in the endeavour to gain control of others. ... Hence his endeavour always to break wills and subordinate them to or absorb them into his own will and being, before destroying their bodies.

VIII: It will there be seen that the wills of Orcs and Balrogs etc. are part of Melkor's power 'dispersed'. Their power is one of hate.

Illuin · Dec 8, 2008

by Belegûr
We had chrysophalax coming out with all guns blazing with a faulty quote from The Book of Lost Tales: Volume II about Tuor

You do realize that most of us have read all of these books a thousand times over; and most of us are very familiar with all of your quotes as well (because; obviously; they are from those same books most of us have been reading for 30 years ). So there is no need to quote the entire works of J.R.R. Tolkien in this silly little thread. Using the scientific method here; you don’t seem to realize the fundamental point here. All of your quotes (and I commend you for your hard work) are not applicable to the question for one reason, and one reason alone: 'there has never been a recorded battle between a Drake and a Balrog'. You can take all of the résumés, past battles, Maia or no Maia, mortal or immortal, follow me, follow me not references and quote them until you sprout wings; but it’s pointless, because it all comes back to one simple, fundamental fact: "It’s not written"...period. When something isn’t written, speculation and interpretation are all we have. Would this thread even exist there was clear-cut documentation; or an obvious conclusion? Quoting passages won’t work with this question; because there’s nothing to quote. There are no hidden facts to dig up; they don't exist. What’s my point? Use your imagination; have a little fun; and take a guess.

Úlairi · Dec 8, 2008

Illuin said:
You do realize that most of us have read all of these books a thousand times over; and most of us are very familiar with all of your quotes as well (because; obviously; they are from those same books most of us have been reading for 30 years ).

And yet I still read some of the most absurd ideas I've ever seen! Such as Aulë which was posted again after the point had been elucidated.

Illuin said:
So there is no need to quote the entire works of J.R.R. Tolkien in this silly little thread.

What makes this thread so silly? We're discussing something here that JRRT took very seriously. He wouldn't have written the essays of Myths Transformed if he did not have similar questions of his own works. I don't care nought one bit for that reference. We've simply taken this discussion to a greater level; which is usually a mission statement for a place like this...

Illuin said:
Using the scientific method here; you don’t seem to realize the fundamental point here. All of your quotes (and I commend you for your hard work) are not applicable to the question for one reason, and one reason alone: 'there has never been a recorded battle between a Drake and a Balrog'. You can take all of the résumés, past battles, Maia or no Maia, mortal or immortal, follow me, follow me not references and quote them until you sprout wings; but it’s pointless, because it all comes back to one simple, fundamental fact: "It’s not written"...period.

It has been written; I've quoted it incessantly. JRRT always maintained hierarchical structures in his myth as he understood something that seems to have evaded you: is it fundamental to myth and fairy-tale. Seeing as I quote waaaaay too much, perhaps you should go and find where he says that, as:

Illuin said:
...most of us are very familiar with all of your quotes as well (because; obviously; they are from those same books most of us have been reading for 30 years ).

I guess Alcuin's excluded from that as he asked me for a quote as well. Fancy that?

Illuin said:
When something isn’t written, speculation and interpretation are all we have. Would this thread even exist there was clear-cut documentation; or an obvious conclusion? Quoting passages won’t work with this question; because there’s nothing to quote. There are no hidden facts to dig up; they don't exist. What’s my point? Use your imagination; have a little fun; and take a guess.

Unlike some people, I prefer to take an educated guess; my apologies if that's to your personal distaste.

chrysophalax · Dec 8, 2008

As much as I enjoy a good blood-bath, I think tempers are becoming a bit frayed, so let's just calm down.

Faulty quote? How so? I typed it exactly as I found it. It's hardly my fault it wasn't included in the final work. Suffice it to say, Tolkien at one time intended for Balrogs to be more numerous, less powerful and more easily "slayable", for lack of a better term. I acknowledge the fact that this was not his final opinion, I merely included it to show that, at one point at least, a man could have slain a Balrog.

Alcuin, I appreciate the wishful thinking about the "wings" of Balrogs, but, (and here I'm only going to paraphrase, not quote directly), Dragons deigned to bear Balrogs on their backs into battle, so methinks said wings were not physical. Also, if Durin's Bane had had wings, would he not have used them, instead of falling, a la Wile E. Coyote, into the bowels of the mountain? Just a thought...

Ulairi, no reason to have so thin a skin (it only makes you more potentialy edible!). Illuin is merely encouraging us all to have fun. He doesn't come from the days of Harad, when all debates devolved into carnage and ill-will.

There are many here, like yourself, who know the books like the backs of their hands. And then there are those like myself, who have read some of the books, but have very definite opinions, opinions shaped not only by Tolkien's works, but by the thousands of other books they've read, so never assume that these are not educated opinons!

In short, let's just re-group and continue.

"I suggest that you restrict the argument to whether Durin’s Bane might have been vanquished by Smaug." I couldn't agree more, Alcuin! That's basically what I've been trying desperately to steer the conversation toward!

While I'm not so sure Smaug was a part of Morgoth's army and thus recruitable again. Dragons always tend to go for the sure thing, not some illusory future promise of reward.

That being said, if he and said Balrog ever met, and had to fight over territory, I still think the dragon would win, simply because the balrog's flames would have no effect on him. Same for the Balrog. It would come down to getting physical and here is where I believe Samug has the advantage. His size, weight and impressive weaponry would pretty much do for Mr. Smoke-and-Mirrors. Granted, Gandalf was a Maia, but from the account he gave Aragorn, it took wearing the Balrog down and then hurling it off the mountain top to kill it's physical body, something I feel quite sure Smaug would also have been able to accomplish.

Úlairi · Dec 8, 2008

chrysophalax said:
As much as I enjoy a good blood-bath, I think tempers are becoming a bit frayed, so let's just calm down.

Noted. I understand where Illuin is coming from; I simply believe he went the wrong way about it. If he had said 'lighten up' I may have been more inclined to agree with him. A personal contention is that these topics should be discussed in the best possible way: with evidence. That's all I'll say about it.

chrysophalax said:
Faulty quote? How so? I typed it exactly as I found it. It's hardly my fault it wasn't included in the final work. Suffice it to say, Tolkien at one time intended for Balrogs to be more numerous, less powerful and more easily "slayable", for lack of a better term. I acknowledge the fact that this was not his final opinion, I merely included it to show that, at one point at least, a man could have slain a Balrog.

Faulty was used for lack of a better word; perhaps outdated may have been better?

chrysophalax said:
Alcuin, I appreciate the wishful thinking about the "wings" of Balrogs, but, (and here I'm only going to paraphrase, not quote directly), Dragons deigned to bear Balrogs on their backs into battle, so methinks said wings were not physical. Also, if Durin's Bane had had wings, would he not have used them, instead of falling, a la Wile E. Coyote, into the bowels of the mountain? Just a thought...

Lol. You know what's funny about this? Every time I get asked if Balrogs could fly I always used that argument. I continue it to the point that Durin's Bane would've been a much harder target for Gandalf if he could fly as well.

chrysophalax said:
Ulairi, no reason to have so thin a skin (it only makes you more potentialy edible!). Illuin is merely encouraging us all to have fun. He doesn't come from the days of Harad, when all debates devolved into carnage and ill-will.

Yeah, you have a point there about the Harad days. We were like roosters at a pecking party. If one spot of blood got onto a certain argument, we'd all go apesh*t.

chrysophalax said:
There are many here, like yourself, who know the books like the backs of their hands. And then there are those like myself, who have read some of the books, but have very definite opinions, opinions shaped not only by Tolkien's works, but by the thousands of other books they've read, so never assume that these are not educated opinons!

Me? Know the books back to front? LMAO! Not even close; nay, not even remotely close! I haven't read Lord of the Rings or The Silmarillion in six years! In terms of opinions being educated, I can bring myself to believe that anyone has a photographic knowledge of the works of Tolkien. You can say one thing based on something you remember in a certain book somewhere; and be disproven with contrary evidence on the same topic! Tolkien was always changing his mind. I never once purported the belief that Dragons were not Umaiar; that's something I'll never know!

chrysophalax said:
"I suggest that you restrict the argument to whether Durin’s Bane might have been vanquished by Smaug." I couldn't agree more, Alcuin! That's basically what I've been trying desperately to steer the conversation toward!

I don't understand this point at all. If we can prove that a cat kills a mouse and never vice versa; then we can say that my cat can kill your mouse - except for Sylvester and Speedy Gonzales; and Itchy and Scratchie. Oops, that didn't work... Whilst I understand the reasoning behind this contention; it is actually easier to construct a substantiated hypothesis on the basis I've elucidated as there is simply more literary evidence on the matter. I just don't like p*ssing in the wind.

chrysophalax said:
While I'm not so sure Smaug was a part of Morgoth's army and thus recruitable again. Dragons always tend to go for the sure thing, not some illusory future promise of reward.

Now that statement certainly needs evidence. I'm sure you'll be able to quote me from your photographic knowledge of Tolkien. I expect a reply within two minutes. Melkor bred Dragons - essentially he created them. They were contrived within his mind. Smaug was of that innumerable 'brood' that JRRT always refers to. I'm not going to give the quote - Illuin has liberated me!

chrysophalax said:
That being said, if he and said Balrog ever met, and had to fight over territory, I still think the dragon would win, simply because the balrog's flames would have no effect on him. Same for the Balrog. It would come down to getting physical and here is where I believe Samug has the advantage. His size, weight and impressive weaponry would pretty much do for Mr. Smoke-and-Mirrors.

You'll have to direct me to the passage where it gives the physical dimensions of Dragons and Balrogs and this "impressive weaponry" you constantly refer to. There's a quote from the movie Snatch that I always refer to in various contexts; and its a personal joke but this situation simply calls for it (I don't expect you to understand the reference; but kudos if you do )

"Sorry Vincent, I forgot to get the by-knock-you-lars [binoculars] out!"

Granted, Gandalf was a Maia, but from the account he gave Aragorn, it took wearing the Balrog down and then hurling it off the mountain top to kill it's physical body, something I feel quite sure Smaug would also have been able to accomplish.

And I'm quite sure that...

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

...out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming.

...could potentially pierce that little soft-spot that Bard's arrow did all to well.

chrysophalax · Dec 8, 2008

Bard had inside information the balrog would not be privy to, therefore it would remain to be seen if the balrog would then have time to find the weak spot on its own.

As to Melkor breeding Dragons, of course he did, but that doesn't mean that every last Dragon still alive during the 3rd Age had been hatched under his watchful eye. I'm quite certain the first Dragons figured out on their own how to make baby dragons!

Regarding why only Smaug and Durins Bane? Easy, because that's what the title of the thread refers to, not; Dragons vs. Balrogs: Who Would Win In a Face-to-Face Battle?. Semantics, possibly, but true nonetheless.

Illuin · Dec 8, 2008

by Úlairi
Unlike some people, I prefer to take an educated guess; my apologies if that's to your personal distaste.

Well, I tried, and have done my part; I used the logical approach. Anyone here familiar with the Freudian method?

YayGollum · Dec 8, 2008

Yikes! Lots to respond to! And I don't use quotes to show people what point of the debate I'm referring to! oh well. We'll figure it out. Without quotes, people can still look at the originals when I seem to be responding to them. Much like how I possess the ability to type about things in books without giving quotes. If people think I'm crazy, they can always check on it or take my word for it. They can have fun either way.

Towards the idea of souls not being created by Eru for later generations of Orcs and, presumably, dragons ---> This is one of many points where I disagree with Tolkien. How does it make sense? If they have no souls, they are just robots or animals? Was Mel, and later, Sauron constantly feeding instructions for every little thing into every little Orc and, presumably, dragon? Or did they just give the general instructions of, "Act like you hate the things I hate. Yeah, be really vile. Cause lots of destruction. Don't leave me armyless but always fulfill this quota of self-destruction. You know, 'cuz it makes others fear you." Okay, so animals makes more sense, but then, check out how intelligent and independent Glaurung and Smaug are. I have no problem with calling Tolkien incorrect, but how's about I bring up the idea that spirits were always volunteering to inhabit new bodies? Mel could capture elf and, presumably, other spirits. Why not insert them where they're needed? And spirits can always pop into inanimate objects, it seems, at least with those dragons.

Towards Smaug being weaker than an (only presumably) original balrog, just because he is an at least second generation dragon ---> Do you have an idea on how powerful the original dragons were versus the average balrog? I, of course, figure that they were lots stronger than balrogs, but I am unsure about exactly how much weaker the next generation would be. Do you have an idea on that? Feanor was plenty powerful for a second generation elf. Eonwe (in some versions) is plenty powerful for a second generation Ainur type thing. Shelob might be able to eat as much light as she wants and could merely have been annoyed by the light and in the mood for hobbit. Smaug was huge and plenty powerful. The average balrog is a lot less huge and of ill-defined power.

Towards Smaug's character ---> I see no need for quotes. You type that it should be obvious to anyone who has read that The Hobbit book that Smaug would eagerly sign up for helping Sauron out with fighting the world for the untrustworthy guy's promise of gold. I type that it should be obvious to anyone who has read that The Hobbit book that he never encountered any situations like that, nor did he display any overly trusting moments. Yes, he was a fan of gold. He fought one mountain of Dwarves and a few humans to get some, then minded his own business until he was bothered. He displayed no ambition for obtaining more gold. He seems more like an offended hermit, to myself, than a greedy, blood-thirsty, and naive pawn.

Towards this hierarchy versus any other approach thing ---> Has it not been proved plenty of times that the hierarchy means less than the individuals? You have quotes that I've been arguing that don't prove that every balrog has more power than every dragon. Even if they do, the power that the quotes are talking about is another ill-defined thing. We know how Mel spent lots of his. We don't know the rules on spending power or the many ways that it could automatically be in use. Was a balrog faster than lightning and able to lift a continent? I don't know, but it is possible, from what I've read. Not very probable, though. Sauron, more powerful than a balrog, ran away from a big dog. Tolkien hasn't given us Smaug's stats, but I don't see why he couldn't smash Huan with one claw.

Towards what you had to type about poor Smeagol ---> You can't come to the conclusion that poor Smeagol could kill a balrog because you figure it to be contrary as well as contradictory to what Tolkien intended? I don't remember Tolkien writing about intending anything regarding poor Smeagol in a fight with a balrog. Evidence that he could beat a balrog ---> Tolkien is quite complimentary regarding poor Smeagol, at times. He writes that he has a large amount of courage, so I figure that if poor Smeagol wanted to kill a balrog, he wouldn't be affected by its fear ability. He gives plenty examples of the guy's cleverness, strength, and endurance. A balrog can be killed (somehow and nonsensically, to myself) with a sword thrust to the area of fire where a heart would be on a human. Mayhaps they could also be killed via strangulation? Poor Smeagol could endure the fire to accomplish his goal, I figure. I have seen no evidence that balrogs are especially intelligent or observant. Poor Smeagol could easily sneak up on the guy. The only problem with would be his strength versus the balrog's. Tolkien never gives examples on how strong they are. Yes, assumptions could be made, but why not agree with me? Poor Smeagol killed plenty of Orcs, at the least, so we know that he could take down at least an elf, which I have no problem equating them to.

There might have been some other points in there. Tell me if I forgot to challenge something that anybody thinks is especially important. Also, we should totally invite Harad back. He was another one of my favorites.

Úlairi · Dec 12, 2008

Illuin said:
Well, I tried, and have done my part; I used the logical approach. Anyone here familiar with the Freudian method?

Logical? Is it really logical to make a comparison between two fantastical creatures based on a description of their characteristics and idiosyncrasies? Or would it be more logical to actually see what the author has to say about which of the two were greater in inherent power? I guess logic really is a relative concept. I think you and Freud would get along pretty well Illuin.

YayGollum said:
Yikes! Lots to respond to! And I don't use quotes to show people what point of the debate I'm referring to! oh well. We'll figure it out. Without quotes, people can still look at the originals when I seem to be responding to them. Much like how I possess the ability to type about things in books without giving quotes. If people think I'm crazy, they can always check on it or take my word for it. They can have fun either way.

Whilst understood, quotes are evidentiary. If someone makes an inference based on a supposed "quote" they can often make assertions that are completely incorrect without being challenged as most people wouldn't be bothered to look up the quote to determine this. I feel that not quoting actually gives an unfair advantage to the person making the inference.

YayGollum said:
Towards the idea of souls not being created by Eru for later generations of Orcs and, presumably, dragons ---> This is one of many points where I disagree with Tolkien. How does it make sense? If they have no souls, they are just robots or animals? Was Mel, and later, Sauron constantly feeding instructions for every little thing into every little Orc and, presumably, dragon? Or did they just give the general instructions of, "Act like you hate the things I hate. Yeah, be really vile. Cause lots of destruction. Don't leave me armyless but always fulfill this quota of self-destruction. You know, 'cuz it makes others fear you." Okay, so animals makes more sense, but then, check out how intelligent and independent Glaurung and Smaug are. I have no problem with calling Tolkien incorrect, but how's about I bring up the idea that spirits were always volunteering to inhabit new bodies? Mel could capture elf and, presumably, other spirits. Why not insert them where they're needed? And spirits can always pop into inanimate objects, it seems, at least with those dragons.

For one thing Yay I'm so glad there's still a few people on this forum actually willing to discuss Tolkien's perspective instead of their own unsubstantiated ones. There are so many threads out there now which some people only desire the opinion of the person without delving any deeper into Tolkien's inferences on the work he created.

Being devoid of a soul in this context would most likely be the utter debasement of these spirits through reproduction to the point that they become animalistic; and ultimately animals in the end. Disagree with Tolkien? Wow, and here I was thinking this was The Tolkien Forum?! This place has changed far too dramatically... Where's Grond? The more I post here the more I miss that big hammer... a lot. In terms of the intelligence of Smaug I do not dispute that there appears to be some lesser spirit dwelling within him as he is still the last of the Great Dragons. It is simply (based on the quotes above) a diminishing of these spirits. The Balrogs never lost their potency as they never degraded themselves like Morgoth or his minions. They maintained their pseudo-raiment based on their knowledge of Arda; as is stipulated in The Silmarillion. Inserting other spirits? Interesting idea, but you'll have to refer me to the quote.

YayGollum said:
Towards Smaug being weaker than an (only presumably) original balrog, just because he is an at least second generation dragon ---> Do you have an idea on how powerful the original dragons were versus the average balrog? I, of course, figure that they were lots stronger than balrogs, but I am unsure about exactly how much weaker the next generation would be. Do you have an idea on that? Feanor was plenty powerful for a second generation elf. Eonwe (in some versions) is plenty powerful for a second generation Ainur type thing. Shelob might be able to eat as much light as she wants and could merely have been annoyed by the light and in the mood for hobbit. Smaug was huge and plenty powerful. The average balrog is a lot less huge and of ill-defined power.

We've been over this so bloody much Yay. Despite your disagreeance with Tolkien; he made them MORE POTENT THAN ANY DRAGON. Once upon time there were Dragons and Balrogs; and Balrogs were of greater potency than Dragons. The end. That's the damn story. Shelob? Shelob was utterly terrified of light. She did not have the same ability; and of all the Great Descendants she exhibited the most animalistic qualities:

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - Shelob's Lair

They wavered. Doubt came into them as the light approached. One by one they dimmed, and slowly they drew back. No brightness so deadly had ever afflicted them before ... Still it apporached, and the eyes began to quail.

Sounds a little scared of the light, no?

YayGollum said:
Towards Smaug's character ---> I see no need for quotes. You type that it should be obvious to anyone who has read that The Hobbit book that Smaug would eagerly sign up for helping Sauron out with fighting the world for the untrustworthy guy's promise of gold. I type that it should be obvious to anyone who has read that The Hobbit book that he never encountered any situations like that, nor did he display any overly trusting moments. Yes, he was a fan of gold. He fought one mountain of Dwarves and a few humans to get some, then minded his own business until he was bothered. He displayed no ambition for obtaining more gold. He seems more like an offended hermit, to myself, than a greedy, blood-thirsty, and naive pawn.

I was just mimicking most of the people in this thread and arguing an unsubstantiated opinion. It's strangely ironic that when I do instead of applaud I get the same response if I supported my arguments with evidence.

YayGollum said:
Towards this hierarchy versus any other approach thing ---> Has it not been proved plenty of times that the hierarchy means less than the individuals? You have quotes that I've been arguing that don't prove that every balrog has more power than every dragon.

That's EXACTLY what they prove. But not in the sense of a combat between the two. One simply has greater inherent strength than the other. I am formulating an opinion based on this discussion by Tolkien. Why is that so difficult to understand???

chrysophalax · Dec 12, 2008

But isn't a battle between the two what we're discussing here? The fact that one is more inherently powerful than the other is not necessarily an advantage. It's not what you have, it's what you do with it.

Given the descriptions of both creatures, Smaug and Durin's Bane, I would choose the Dragon every time. Why? Wel, first of all, they seem evenly matched. Both use fire as their primary weapon, both have vulnerable spots in their chest areas (though Smaug's is not commonly known).

Then we come to Smaug's advantages: flight, inherent magick, fire-proof hide, huge claws and teeth, his tail, his bulk and his intelligence. Whether or not he has a lesser Ainur or Maia inside him is not addressed in the Hobbit, (which would be the only work of Tolkien's that could be quoted regarding him, as far as I know). His own irascible nature seems to work for him just fine.

Durin's Bane's advantages are his whip and sword of flame, the fact that he is an Ainur/Maia type and therefore after death his soul/spirit is imperishable, his track record (there is incontrovertable evidence that he slew countless dwarves when he fled to Moria and probably many elves as well prior to that), so his intimidation factor is quite high.

Now we come to an interesting question, because I believe what would determine the outcome of such a battle would be intelligence. Does having intelligence require the presence of a soul? I believe there's another thread that addresses just such a question.

The winner here cannot be guessed or proven by quotes here, only by reasoned assumption, which , in my case, brings me down on the side of the Dragon. Dragons tended to be loose cannons, as Morgoth discovered with Glaurung. They can think outside the box, whereas balrogs seem to me to be soldiers, obeying commands and doing as they were directed, with a more limited capacity for strategy.

Úlairi · Dec 12, 2008

chrysophalax said:
But isn't a battle between the two what we're discussing here? The fact that one is more inherently powerful than the other is not necessarily an advantage. It's not what you have, it's what you do with it.

...

The winner here cannot be guessed or proven by quotes here, only by reasoned assumption, which , in my case, brings me down on the side of the Dragon. Dragons tended to be loose cannons, as Morgoth discovered with Glaurung. They can think outside the box, whereas balrogs seem to me to be soldiers, obeying commands and doing as they were directed, with a more limited capacity for strategy.

Reasoned assumption will prove a winner? Can't agree with that... ever. To assume A > B you must then prove it. The problem with assumption however, is that you can assume anything; which makes this thread entirely ridiculous. I can assume that 1 out of every 4 Balrogs likes to be called 'Daisy'. Now I'm not saying what you've said is entirely void; as you've made assumptions based on known, pre-existing knowledge of the two. If there were no actual evidence supplied by the author on the matter then reasoned assumption would be all you would have left; and only then would I be 'all for' this discussion of their characteristics weighed against one another. However, in this circumstance we have more than that. They can think outside the box? Now, whilst I know this is an adage it may be useful here to classify what the box is in relation to a Balrog's inability to do so.

Another important thing to note is that when Melkor was in dire straits in Lammoth he didn't call upon his Dragons to come save the day and serve up 'Toasted Spider' (a delicacy of Angband at the time ); but rather his chief and most potent servants: The Balrogs. It looks as though from a strategic point of view this must have been a better move.

chrysophalax · Dec 12, 2008

Of course he didn't! He chose those he knew would do his bidding. The Dragons around at that time might have refused, or decided it wasn't worth their while. Tokien's Dragons are intelligent animals and, like all animals will do as they like from time to time, especially when bred to be wily and don't exactly have what one would call sunny personalities.

Also, I assume nothing. I argued based on what Tolkien wrote about Smaug and Durin's Bane in The Hobbit and LotR, What more would you have me say, other than to agree with you? I regret that you find my interpretation of the facts as I read them to be wanting.

So, unless there is definitive proof that I have not found in either work ( which are the only works cogent to this discussion), that says my interpretation is erroneous, I'll be sticking with it.

Who would win, Smaug or a Balrog

Who would win

Smaug

a Balrog

Dragon of Note

Crying in the Wilderness

Crying in the Wilderness

Conscience of TTF

Dragon of Note

Crying in the Wilderness

of Zarkanya

Crying in the Wilderness

Crying in the Wilderness

Fire On The Mountain

Crying in the Wilderness

Dragon of Note

Crying in the Wilderness

Dragon of Note

Fire On The Mountain

Conscience of TTF

Crying in the Wilderness

Dragon of Note

Crying in the Wilderness

Dragon of Note

Share this page

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency