Why did Tolkien create the dagor dagorath ⚔️battle?

[Turin_Turambar]

On reddit, many people say that the middle world created by Tolkien has a decline theme. So the most powerful beings and spells lose their power over time or disappear completely. Is that true? if true why did Tolkien write dagor dagorath? because in the dagor dagorath all evil beings will be resurrected and they will fight valar and other races. if there is decline theme why will dagor dagorath battle be bigger and more crowded than other battles? And why will all races be included in the second music of ainur? and why will the second music be bigger than the first? Please the most knowledgeable members inform about this subject. This is a very serious subject. I expect the participation of all forum members.

 

[Aldarion]

There is definitely a theme of decline: each new age loses some of majesty of the previous ages. As for Dagor Dagorath, it is literally the end of time: the last great battle, culmination of everything before. More than that however, it is a new beginning.

 

[Elmoth]

Yes. Decline. First age you have elves battling balrogs, dragons and even melkor. End of third age they have problems against vastly inferior forces in power (not necessarily in numbers). The elves are weaker than they used to be. The elves of the 1s age that remain in middle earth (Galadriel, Glorfindel...) are greatly superior in spiritual power to other elves. I suppose they were significant in the first age, but not by the same margin.

Humans also live shorter lives. And in general the magic and wonder of the world is fading.

You can see decline or "mundanization" of the world. The things of wonder diminish and everything becomes more "real world normal".

 

[Elthir]

(. . .) I expect the participation of all forum members.

 

[1stvermont]

I say the decline was centered on the cultural decline and distancing of the Valar. Tolkien also talked about the rise of military power over time. The Silmarillion uses hyperbole often and the later writings are historical focused. This leads many to misread and exaggerate the early ages.

 

[Turin_Turambar]

I say the decline was centered on the cultural decline and distancing of the Valar. Tolkien also talked about the rise of military power over time. The Silmarillion uses hyperbole often and the later writings are historical focused. This leads many to misread and exaggerate the early ages.

I, on the other hand, read on wikipedia that the decline is only about events. ie the destruction of the two lamps of the valar the destruction of the two trees in valinor the defeat of melkor his fall from his angelic form and his thrown into the void the loss of the silmarils the sinking and perdition of the numenorians by eru the fall and defeat of sauron etc etc. In other words, according to what he wrote on Wikipedia, the decline is the violent and great destruction of events and the destruction of everything in its original state. That is, it has nothing to do with the power and might of beings. They are written on Wikipedia. I don't know how true it is. if the military power of all races is increasing as the ages go by, if they are getting stronger militarily, is there any solid evidence or source about this? Can you share it here? because I was really curious about it.

 

[1stvermont]

I, on the other hand, read on wikipedia that the decline is only about events. ie the destruction of the two lamps of the valar the destruction of the two trees in valinor the defeat of melkor his fall from his angelic form and his thrown into the void the loss of the silmarils the sinking and perdition of the numenorians by eru the fall and defeat of sauron etc etc. In other words, according to what he wrote on Wikipedia, the decline is the violent and great destruction of events and the destruction of everything in its original state. That is, it has nothing to do with the power and might of beings. They are written on Wikipedia. I don't know how true it is. if the military power of all races is increasing as the ages go by, if they are getting stronger militarily, is there any solid evidence or source about this? Can you share it here? because I was really curious about it.

I have not read the wiki source but that is about what I was saying.

I have an entire chapter dealing with this subject in my upcoming book. I tried to copy past a section for you but it messed with the formatting so I was unable to.

 

[Turin_Turambar]

I have not read the wiki source but that is about what I was saying.

I have an entire chapter dealing with this subject in my upcoming book. I tried to copy past a section for you but it messed with the formatting so I was unable to.

I'm looking forward to your book. It's really nice to have someone on the forum who writes a book about middle earth. But what I'm wondering is, does your book also explain how and why the military forces of the third age are stronger than the first age? If it's explained, it's really good. because most people on the internet say that the beings and events of the first age are greater than the third age. Because they think that the middle-earth ages are the real universe we live in and the past history of the world. In other words, the fantastical elements diminish over time and replace the world we live in today. However, middle-earth is only a fiction. If Tolkien had the intention to show middle earth mythology as a past of the world we live in, he would openly say so. On the other hand, if middle earth mythology is real world history, then the continent called valinor must be today's north america. In America, there was supposed to be valar right now. Where is the valar? I think this notion is unreasonable.

 

[1stvermont]

But what I'm wondering is, does your book also explain how and why the military forces of the third age are stronger than the first age? If it's explained, it's really good. because most people on the internet say that the beings and events of the first age are greater than the third age. Because they think that the middle-earth ages are the real universe we live in and the past history of the world. In other words, the fantastical elements diminish over time and replace the world we live in today. However, middle-earth is only a fiction. If Tolkien had the intention to show middle earth mythology as a past of the world we live in, he would openly say so. On the other hand, if middle earth mythology is real world history, then the continent called valinor must be today's north america. In America, there was supposed to be valar right now. Where is the valar? I think this notion is unreasonable.

Tolkien said his mythology was history, and middle earth was our earth, yet it was a mythological time period almost an alternative history. He was clear ME's history is not to be placed in our Anthropological history.

I am glad to run into someone who seems to think as I do. It is true, the vast majority (including posters here) of Tolkien fans hold to militarily superior Elder days, I do not. As you said what caused me to investigate this subject was due to forum posters and internet sources that overwhelmingly supported the standard history of ME. Posters can tell you all the reasons power was lost (without being too specific of overall effects) but won't be able to tell you how they increased over time. In fact, I am unsure of any source that argues from my perspective. Yet I think my view is well supported and the causes of the common view easily understandable and easily corrected.

So to give an idea of what my chapter does is it goes into detail in Tolkien's wirings and his use of Hyperbole especially related to his elvish mythological writings of the Elder days. Tolkien wrote in a different manner in his hobbit-centric third age narratives. I then show his use of hyperbolic writing and apply it to various creatures such as the Valar, dragons, Morgoth, and other first-age creatures while pointing to passages generally ignored. I make various arguments based on what was presented. I then go into various ways in which militarily ME advance in the third age over the previous ages. Lastly, I make some short comparisons between the ages.

My conclusion is based on all the text (I use all the standard stuff, his letters, the sil, hobbit, lotr, HOME, etc) and arguments made would surprise many, and be called heretical by some. IMO the third age contains the most military might, followed by the Elder days, and lastley the second age. But how can that be with all the overwhelmingly powerful dragons, balrogs, and valar in the Elder Days? Just have to wait and see

 

[1stvermont]

The elves are weaker than they used to be. The elves of the 1s age that remain in middle earth (Galadriel, Glorfindel...) are greatly superior in spiritual power to other elves. I suppose they were significant in the first age, but not by the same margin.

Did you ever consider Galadriel and Glorfindel became more powerful over time? Or that elves in general (and any longer living beings look at the Numnereans) become more powerful and the Noldor elves that retuned were the strongest to ever walk ME? I say Galadriel at the time of TWOTR was the most powerful elf to ever walk ME.

 

[Goldilocks Gamgee]

I doubt the elves grew in strength, at least those who were born later on. For in the Silmarillion, the elves almost surround Angband itself - if I understood correctly - before the Dagor Bragollach. When the Alliance of Men and Elves marched out against Sauron, they defeated him: almost. They crushed his forces. But at the end of the Third Age, the elves cannot defend themselves for long against the fallen Maiar's armies, though he is without his Ring. Why so? Are they diminishing? Weakening, I could say.

 

[Turin_Turambar]

Tolkien said his mythology was history, and middle earth was our earth, yet it was a mythological time period almost an alternative history. He was clear ME's history is not to be placed in our Anthropological history.

I am glad to run into someone who seems to think as I do. It is true, the vast majority (including posters here) of Tolkien fans hold to militarily superior Elder days, I do not. As you said what caused me to investigate this subject was due to forum posters and internet sources that overwhelmingly supported the standard history of ME. Posters can tell you all the reasons power was lost (without being too specific of overall effects) but won't be able to tell you how they increased over time. In fact, I am unsure of any source that argues from my perspective. Yet I think my view is well supported and the causes of the common view easily understandable and easily corrected.

So to give an idea of what my chapter does is it goes into detail in Tolkien's wirings and his use of Hyperbole especially related to his elvish mythological writings of the Elder days. Tolkien wrote in a different manner in his hobbit-centric third age narratives. I then show his use of hyperbolic writing and apply it to various creatures such as the Valar, dragons, Morgoth, and other first-age creatures while pointing to passages generally ignored. I make various arguments based on what was presented. I then go into various ways in which militarily ME advance in the third age over the previous ages. Lastly, I make some short comparisons between the ages.

My conclusion is based on all the text (I use all the standard stuff, his letters, the sil, hobbit, lotr, HOME, etc) and arguments made would surprise many, and be called heretical by some. IMO the third age contains the most military might, followed by the Elder days, and lastley the second age. But how can that be with all the overwhelmingly powerful dragons, balrogs, and valar in the Elder Days? Just have to wait and see

It is okay for Tolkien to say that he wrote middle-earth as an alternative history. Because as you already said, Tolkien also said that it cannot be included in anthropological history. There are only 2 main reasons why people think that the first age is stronger and more mighty.
1-middle-earth contains a theme of decline. Beings and their power fade and dwindle over time.
2-In the first age, there are beings that are not in the third age. Or rather, in the third age there are only 2 beings that are not used in war. balrogs and dragons.
On the first thought, I don't think that the decline of the theme is about the races themselves and their power. Because wikipedia says that the fall of the middle-earth theme is about events, only about the devastating consequences of events.
Second thought, the fact that they did not fight in the War of the Ring, as balrogs and dragons are Morgoth's most powerful servants, is another factor that brings the first age to the fore. But there are actually some points that are overlooked. The first is that the number of balrogs was only 7. So the number of balrogs was limited, like the Nazgul had 9. According to the late writings, there were only 7 balrogs. As for the dragons, I think Sauron didn't need dragons in the War of the Ring. Because according to the tolkiengateway site, the fellbeasts, which are as numerous as the first age dragons and used as mounts by the Nazgul, are descended from the cold dragons of the first age. The only thing missing is that they can't breathe fire. But the thing is, I honestly think Sauron's infantry forces are stronger than Morgoth's infantry. Because Saruman's uruk-hais are sauron's uruks and olog-hais are an upgrade to the first era orcs and trolls. They are both stronger and more technical. The other beings are werewolves and the wargs were the same in the first age and the third age anyway. I think the only thing missing from the war of the ring is the absence of balrogs and dragons, I think is nazguls, fellbeasts and mumakils closing their absence. Although the nazguls are not as devastating as the balrogs and the fellbeasts are not as devastating as the dragons, they have their own unique power. And this is a very serious problem for men and elves in the war of the ring.

 

[1stvermont]

I doubt the elves grew in strength, at least those who were born later on. For in the Silmarillion, the elves almost surround Angband itself - if I understood correctly - before the Dagor Bragollach. When the Alliance of Men and Elves marched out against Sauron, they defeated him: almost. They crushed his forces. But at the end of the Third Age, the elves cannot defend themselves for long against the fallen Maiar's armies, though he is without his Ring. Why so? Are they diminishing? Weakening, I could say.

Are we speaking collectively or individually? I was referring only to individually because Tolkien tells us this is so. But I admit the most significant loss of power in ME would be the decaying away of the Noldor elves. Not of course the Silvan elves.

Yes, the elves [with allies man dwarf, and so on] did besiege Angband for 400 years before Morgoth was at full strength. But I argue Morgoth and his power was not as great as many assume, so perhaps it's not as an amazing feat as believed. Feanor knew in his day they could not overcome Morgoth.

I don't disagree wholly with your point. The Noldor elves collectively were not as strong. But in the war of the last alliance, they did have the help of men from Arnor, Gondor, and all the various elven realms along with dwarves from Moria. But what I would argue is that the forces under Sauron [including allies like Easterling haradrim and so on] were more powerful at the time of the WOTR than at the last alliance.

 

[1stvermont]

It is okay for Tolkien to say that he wrote middle-earth as an alternative history. Because as you already said, Tolkien also said that it cannot be included in anthropological history. There are only 2 main reasons why people think that the first age is stronger and more mighty.
1-middle-earth contains a theme of decline. Beings and their power fade and dwindle over time.
2-In the first age, there are beings that are not in the third age. Or rather, in the third age there are only 2 beings that are not used in war. balrogs and dragons.
On the first thought, I don't think that the decline of the theme is about the races themselves and their power. Because wikipedia says that the fall of the middle-earth theme is about events, only about the devastating consequences of events.
Second thought, the fact that they did not fight in the War of the Ring, as balrogs and dragons are Morgoth's most powerful servants, is another factor that brings the first age to the fore. But there are actually some points that are overlooked. The first is that the number of balrogs was only 7. So the number of balrogs was limited, like the Nazgul had 9. According to the late writings, there were only 7 balrogs. As for the dragons, I think Sauron didn't need dragons in the War of the Ring. Because according to the tolkiengateway site, the fellbeasts, which are as numerous as the first age dragons and used as mounts by the Nazgul, are descended from the cold dragons of the first age. The only thing missing is that they can't breathe fire. But the thing is, I honestly think Sauron's infantry forces are stronger than Morgoth's infantry. Because Saruman's uruk-hais are sauron's uruks and olog-hais are an upgrade to the first era orcs and trolls. They are both stronger and more technical. The other beings are werewolves and the wargs were the same in the first age and the third age anyway. I think the only thing missing from the war of the ring is the absence of balrogs and dragons, I think is nazguls, fellbeasts and mumakils closing their absence. Although the nazguls are not as devastating as the balrogs and the fellbeasts are not as devastating as the dragons, they have their own unique power. And this is a very serious problem for men and elves in the war of the ring.

I think it would be fair to ME as an alternative history to our own. But in all honesty, I have not dug into the question to speak absolutely.

Yes, part of my argument includes that Tolkien intended only seven balrogs. I orginally held to a many balrogs intepritation and it was on this forum debating that I changed my stance to seven. And as you mention everyone cites the use of dragons and balrogs but cannot tell you of the third age increses or new wepons used. You mention a couple, the nazgul and fellbeasts. Further I would say the dragons and balrogs while very powerful, are exagerated in their abilities.

If you read Unifinshed Tales Sauron desired to use Smaug for the war but that did not work out as we know. He would have loved to have dragons just as Morgoth would have loved to have the mumakil, the uruks, the Olog-hai, the siege eqipment used and so. Did the article cite the source saying nazgul were decendet from dragons? When Legalas saw what he cred "what new evil is this" [or something like that]. They were fed foul meats and enlarged by Sauron in the third age. Perhaps they could have been some kind of dragon but I always imagined them like trolls as being first utislized as a wepon in the third age and dragons had been used by Morgoth.

I agree the infentry force was stronger and the breeds made better in the third. Yes wolves [wargs] were used in earlier ages but they were not mounted as they were in the third, with the warg riders.

 

[Turin_Turambar]

I think it would be fair to ME as an alternative history to our own. But in all honesty, I have not dug into the question to speak absolutely.

Yes, part of my argument includes that Tolkien intended only seven balrogs. I orginally held to a many balrogs intepritation and it was on this forum debating that I changed my stance to seven. And as you mention everyone cites the use of dragons and balrogs but cannot tell you of the third age increses or new wepons used. You mention a couple, the nazgul and fellbeasts. Further I would say the dragons and balrogs while very powerful, are exagerated in their abilities.

If you read Unifinshed Tales Sauron desired to use Smaug for the war but that did not work out as we know. He would have loved to have dragons just as Morgoth would have loved to have the mumakil, the uruks, the Olog-hai, the siege eqipment used and so. Did the article cite the source saying nazgul were decendet from dragons? When Legalas saw what he cred "what new evil is this" [or something like that]. They were fed foul meats and enlarged by Sauron in the third age. Perhaps they could have been some kind of dragon but I always imagined them like trolls as being first utislized as a wepon in the third age and dragons had been used by Morgoth.

I agree the infentry force was stronger and the breeds made better in the third. Yes wolves [wargs] were used in earlier ages but they were not mounted as they were in the third, with the warg riders.

It is written on their personal pages on the tolkiengateway site that fellbeasts are descendants of cold dragons. Take a look if you want. I personally think that; In the third age, evil gained more power than in the first age. Because infantry units were upgraded. new beings such as fallbeasts, nazguls, mumakils, catapults came. But what I am talking about here is the army of evil that has gained strength. Not the one who rules evil. So Sauron is not gaining strength. Or Sauron is not as strong as Morgoth. Only his army is renewed and his army was upgraded and the armies are stronger individually than army of Morgoth. But it is a fact that Morgoth is weaker than even Sauron without the ring during the War of Wrath. Because he has spent all his power on the beings under his command. If you have watched the second movie of the Hobbit, you have seen it. Sauron is comfortably defeated balrog slayer Gandalf the Grey, without the ring, by destroying his staff. If you ask me, Sauron is more powerful in the third age than Morgoth in the late first age. But the greatest enemy of Middle-earth is Morgoth, because unlike Sauron, he wanted to destroy not only the races but also the Ainur. Sauron had no desire to dominate the Ainur. Sauron only wanted to destroy all the races of middle-earth and rule middle-earth with beings under his command.

 

[1stvermont]

It is written on their personal pages on the tolkiengateway site that fellbeasts are descendants of cold dragons. Take a look if you want. I personally think that; In the third age, evil gained more power than in the first age. Because infantry units were upgraded. new beings such as fallbeasts, nazguls, mumakils, catapults came. But what I am talking about here is the army of evil that has gained strength. Not the one who rules evil. So Sauron is not gaining strength. Or Sauron is not as strong as Morgoth. Only his army is renewed and his army was upgraded and the armies are stronger individually than army of Morgoth. But it is a fact that Morgoth is weaker than even Sauron without the ring during the War of Wrath. Because he has spent all his power on the beings under his command. If you have watched the second movie of the Hobbit, you have seen it. Sauron is comfortably defeated balrog slayer Gandalf the Grey, without the ring, by destroying his staff. If you ask me, Sauron is more powerful in the third age than Morgoth in the late first age. But the greatest enemy of Middle-earth is Morgoth, because unlike Sauron, he wanted to destroy not only the races but also the Ainur. Sauron had no desire to dominate the Ainur. Sauron only wanted to destroy all the races of middle-earth and rule middle-earth with beings under his command.

That is funny you mention Sauron and Morgoth. I have a section where I argue Sauron, not Morgoth is the greatest force for evil and that he was more powerful than Morgoth by the second age. As you stated, Morgoth lost power by courting nature itself and orcs and so on, Sauron was able to pick up where Morgoth left off. Further, Sauron grew in strength. But this all needs to be laid out and detailed and I won't do so here. I am just glad to see another who agrees with me.

 

[Turin_Turambar]

That is funny you mention Sauron and Morgoth. I have a section where I argue Sauron, not Morgoth is the greatest force for evil and that he was more powerful than Morgoth by the second age. As you stated, Morgoth lost power by courting nature itself and orcs and so on, Sauron was able to pick up where Morgoth left off. Further, Sauron grew in strength. But this all needs to be laid out and detailed and I won't do so here. I am just glad to see another who agrees with me.

You're right, but when Morgoth was first created, he was stronger than all form of Sauron in his wars with the Valar and in the battle of powers. Because Morgoth is said to be significantly stronger than the Ainur's combined strength. Sauron is a maia after all. And although some maiar like eönwe are as strong as the Valar, When morgoth was first created he was stronger than any other form of the Ainur.

 

[1stvermont]

You're right, but when Morgoth was first created, he was stronger than all form of Sauron in his wars with the Valar and in the battle of powers. Because Morgoth is said to be significantly stronger than the Ainur's combined strength. Sauron is a maia after all. And although some maiar like eönwe are as strong as the Valar, When morgoth was first created he was stronger than any other form of the Ainur.

Agreed.

 

[Halasían]

From my observations, I think the overall trend throughout Tolkien's writings has been a 'waning' in most all things.

 

[Muskrat]

At the end of the first age, the world lost Beleriand. In the second age, we lost access to the Valar. There are no more Feanors or Celebrimbors. After the third age, many more races will disappear. I am not sure about military power, but, I do not think that is the best way to judge the achievements of an age