Why are the Wars of Beleriand said to be greater?

[Turin_Turambar]

First of all, I would like to start by stating that I am as objective as possible. I did the most detailed research on the internet and I came to the following conclusions.

Beleriand, where all the events of the First Age takes place, is much smaller in size than the Third Age Middle-earth where the War of the Ring takes place. So it has a much smaller area. In fact, the size of Beleriand is 3/4 of the Eriador. This helps you to better understand the size difference between the 2 regions.

In the nirnaeth arnoediad war, there were 100,000 orcs in total, not counting other beings. However, according to most sources on the internet, it is stated that there were exactly 200,000 orcs in the siege of gondor.

first battle,dagor-nuin-giliath,battle of lammoth and dagor aglareb.in these wars,not counting the balrogs that Feanor fought,there were only orcs.so the elves only fought against orcs in these wars.trolls,wargs and dragons were created by morgoth during the siege of angband.and together with the balrogs they first appeared in dagor bragollach.

In the wars of Beleriand, balrogs were not as numerous as dragons and trolls. There were only 7 balrogs in Morgoth's service, including Gothmog. Just as there were only 9 Nazgul in the service of Sauron.

Dragons of the first age fought en masse in a total of 3 wars, including the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, the Fall of the Gondolin, and the War of Wrath. And in no war, except the dragons in the War of Wrath, the dragons weren't winged. They could only crawl around like glaurung and breathe fire. Their number was same by the number of fellbeasts in the war of the ring. fellbeasts, on the other hand, could fly because they had wings, although they could not breathe fire.

The Numenoreans were much stronger than the Noldor elves. They would even have defeated all the Valar in Valinor if Eru hadn't intervened. This means they were stronger as an army than the Valar. Since the people of Gondor are descended from Numenor, I think the military units of Gondor are better than the Noldor elves.

During the War of the Ring, the population of Middle-earth was much more than the population of Beleriand. 1.2 million elves, 150,000 men, and 350,000 dwarves lived in Beleriand. During the War of the Ring, 2 million men lived in only Gondor in the middle earth. from other races, there were 100 thousand elves and 100 thousand dwarves.

The uruks, uruk-hais, and olog-hais during the War of the Ring were stronger than the orcs and trolls in Morgoth's service.

Despite all these results, why do people on this site and on the internet question and answer sites say that the first age is bigger? Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to create controversy. I just wonder why people think that way.

 

[Sulimo]

First off I really appreciated your statistical data, and the way you broke everything down. I have never approached the books in this manner. In particular as I have gotten older I read them much more thematically, but it is fascinating to attempt to quantify an epic. I think part of the reason things are considered greater is the overall scope and scale of the conflict. The Silmarillion opens with the creation of the world, and introduces the conflicting themes that will attempt to subjugate creation. The LOTR opens with a description of the various kinds of hobbits,. The stakes out the gate are very different for the end goal of what these stories are attempting to accomplish.
.
While both of these stories are epics The Silmarillion explores the destructiveness of pride and ambition first and foremost. This is a common theme in
the LOTR, but I think it is more nuanced. There is a contrast present throughout the LOTR with the Hobbits consistently being pitted against prideful characters. In the Silmarillion everyone in Middle Earth is doomed from Noldor to Melkor. Pretty much every single character meets their end mostly due to pride. In LOTR we see the power of humility. When Galadriel refuses the ring she is able to pass the test. She conquered her pride and ambition. In humility she found peace and forgiveness.

Another significant difference in style of these books is we see the Elves in the Silmarillion go from being in their full power with the light of Valinor still in their eyes to a few broken outlaws. We witness the destructiveness of war and see how much beauty and nobility is lost. We see the heartache and subjugation of the people of the land. In the LOTR on the other hand we see that everything has atrophied 100 fold. The power of the elves is a shadow of what it was in the First Age. The house of Elendil is broken except for about 20 or so rangers. Gondor is barely more then the city walls of Minas Tirith, but there is hope. There is no hope in the Silmarillion. Everyone is Doomed. This effects the overall tone of the books, and would lead people to think that things are bigger in the Silmarillion. The big battles that made the world the way it is have already been fought. Also the battle while essential and important in the LOTR mostly serves as a distraction and not the driving force of the action of the book. This is very different from the last battle where the Valar come to the aid of the survivors. I think this would lead people to feel that things are bigger in The Silmarillion as well. In either scenario marshalled forces made no differences to the outcome. That's my opinion at least.

 

[Turin_Turambar]

First off I really appreciated your statistical data, and the way you broke everything down. I have never approached the books in this manner. In particular as I have gotten older I read them much more thematically, but it is fascinating to attempt to quantify an epic. I think part of the reason things are considered greater is the overall scope and scale of the conflict. The Silmarillion opens with the creation of the world, and introduces the conflicting themes that will attempt to subjugate creation. The LOTR opens with a description of the various kinds of hobbits,. The stakes out the gate are very different for the end goal of what these stories are attempting to accomplish.
.
While both of these stories are epics The Silmarillion explores the destructiveness of pride and ambition first and foremost. This is a common theme in
the LOTR, but I think it is more nuanced. There is a contrast present throughout the LOTR with the Hobbits consistently being pitted against prideful characters. In the Silmarillion everyone in Middle Earth is doomed from Noldor to Melkor. Pretty much every single character meets their end mostly due to pride. In LOTR we see the power of humility. When Galadriel refuses the ring she is able to pass the test. She conquered her pride and ambition. In humility she found peace and forgiveness.

Another significant difference in style of these books is we see the Elves in the Silmarillion go from being in their full power with the light of Valinor still in their eyes to a few broken outlaws. We witness the destructiveness of war and see how much beauty and nobility is lost. We see the heartache and subjugation of the people of the land. In the LOTR on the other hand we see that everything has atrophied 100 fold. The power of the elves is a shadow of what it was in the First Age. The house of Elendil is broken except for about 20 or so rangers. Gondor is barely more then the city walls of Minas Tirith, but there is hope. There is no hope in the Silmarillion. Everyone is Doomed. This effects the overall tone of the books, and would lead people to think that things are bigger in the Silmarillion. The big battles that made the world the way it is have already been fought. Also the battle while essential and important in the LOTR mostly serves as a distraction and not the driving force of the action of the book. This is very different from the last battle where the Valar come to the aid of the survivors. I think this would lead people to feel that things are bigger in The Silmarillion as well. In either scenario marshalled forces made no differences to the outcome. That's my opinion at least.

Do not mislead you if I wrote the data as if it is absolutely correct. I have quoted the most probable estimates from various sites on the internet, especially some wikis. So what I wrote and the data may not be correct. but according to most internet sources i gathered the data closest to canon. Actually, I think like this. I don't know if Tolkien think about the decline theme, or the power dwindling, or the evil gaining strength. But it's a fact that Tolkien wrote each of the 3 middle-earth ages, each with its own unique atmosphere and differences from each other, both good and bad, and elements that were in one age and not in the other age. In other words, ages have advantages and disadvantages against each other. Each age has differences that are not present in other ages.

 

[Will Whitfoot]

Very interesting discussion! I would have to say that the struggles of every generation are often viewed in the shadow of those that came before. We of the Vietnam generation cannot aspire to the moniker of the "greatest generation" of our fathers and grandfathers. And they themselves viewed earlier wars as greater or more consequential than their own. Tales grow in the telling, wars fade into history, history into myth. and myth into legend. As it is in the real world, so it is in fantasy as well. Professor Tolkien was himself no stranger to the realities of war. Yet in his writings he chose to mythologize rather than to memorialize. And it is for this reason that we here remember him! If all he had done was to write a memoir of his experience in the military, that tome would likely lie with the myriads of others that clutter used bookstore shelves without readers. But lo, he chose a higher path, and we are all the better for it!