Would you rather be a Balrog or a 🐲Dragon?

[Arvedui]

But they were still killable, while Balrogs can be said to have been almost immortal because so few were ever vanquished in combat.

Why were few ever defeated in combat?
Because they were few to begin with!I am not an expert on Balrogs, but if I am not totally wrong, I think the number of Balrogs never exeeded seven, right? And all of them were killed in hand-to-hand combat weren't they? Echtelion and Glorfindel each killed one in the Sack of Gondolin. And during the War of Wrath

The Balrogs were destroyed, save some few that fled and hid themselves in caverns inaccessible at the roots of the earth;

But what is said about Dragons and their participation in that same war:

Morgoth quailed, and he dared not to come forth himself. But he loosed upon his foes the last desperate assault that he had prepared, and out of the pits of Angband there issued the winged dragons, that had not before been seen; and so sudden and ruinous was the onset of that dreadful fleet that the host of the Valar was driven back, for the coming of the dragons was with great thunder, and lightning, and a tempest of fire.

And one great advantage over the dragons which Valaraukar have is the same which the Nazgûl use: f e a r. This force of terror is enough to paralyze any warrior, and on top of that they are made of living fire and shadow and therefore are ethereal and can hardly be killed (I stand by my Unseen/Seen theory of before), and they often utilize whips and swords of iron and flame, which I can only imagine must be several times larger than those used by humanoid soldiers in Arda.

I really think that you have lost something if you think that the dragons didn't spread fear before them. And besides, dragons were able to paralyze any warrior through their mental strength, without having to rely on fear alone...
Can hardly be killed? See above.

So weep, dragonlovers, for my pet Balrog will squoosh you all!! MUAHAHAHA!!!

Your pet Balrog is less dangerous than Bin-Laden with a hangover. Dragons rule!!!

 

[Morgoth]

I chose Balrog. Firstly, no man has ever killed one, only 2 elves and an Istari (that I know of anyway). Glaurung, daddy of all dragons, was killed by Turin Turumbar, a mere mortal. Secondly, Ecthelion died killing Gothmog, and Gandalf nearly popped his clogs, if it wasnt for the Valar. The dragons seem to be somewhat easier to kill. Balrogs are also better because:
*They look better
*They move about better
*Not easily killed by swords- "Swords are no more use here!"
So I vote Balrog.

 

[Turin]

Glaurung, daddy of all dragons, was killed by Turin Turumbar, a mere mortal.

*Ehem*, Túrin could kick any elf's butt, he never had a chance to fight a balrog, if so he would have won.

 

[Huan the Hound]

Turin was pretty freakin sweet, I think calling him a mere mortal is not adequate. Moreover, his sword had a mind of his own, and was forged by the dark elf-- a pretty big deal. And, look at the treasure that Smaug amassed-- pretty awesome. Oh yes... And... A flying Dragon would be a far better thing than a balrog, which may or may not fly, even if it does have wings. Also, Balrogs don't even like to go outside, they just live in pits at the bottom of the world. Boring! No question about it-- Dragons are the way to go.

Point for clarification:

Does the Balrog of Moria answer to Sauron?

 

[Huan the Hound]

Additionally-- just because Gandalf tells the company that swords are no more use (does he say this in the books or just the film?) doesn't mean that no swords were of any use at any point-- how else did Glorfindel and Echthelion kill their Balrogs?

 

[Ireth Telrúnya]

I'd be dragon, of course. Balrog is outright evil, Smaug didn't seem so evil. And dragons can be very nice, like the one in this movie where Sean Connery was the voice of the dragon...right now I just can't remember the name of the movie.

 

[Gandalf White]

I'd be dragon, of course. Balrog is outright evil, Smaug didn't seem so evil. And dragons can be very nice, like the one in this movie where Sean Connery was the voice of the dragon...right now I just can't remember the name of the movie.

But I'm afraid all dragons in M-E are evil! And I'm sure Sean Connery's dragon was not located in M-E.

Dragons are cool, yes, but I prefer my Balrog...

 

[Deleted member 3778]

I think..you can't really compare the two - besides, dragons are very different as well (unless you're only talking about Tolkien's inevitably evil "dragons".)

 

[Sarde]

I'd be dragon, of course. Balrog is outright evil, Smaug didn't seem so evil. And dragons can be very nice, like the one in this movie where Sean Connery was the voice of the dragon...right now I just can't remember the name of the movie.

Dragonheart... The dragon was called Draco. And how could a dragon bearing the lovely voice of Sean Connery not be nice?
That was a very sweet dragon, but he indeed did not seem to be from around Middle-earth.

 

[Turin]

I'd be dragon, of course. Balrog is outright evil, Smaug didn't seem so evil.

And what's wrong with being evil? Being evil is what makes a balrog so awsome .

 

[Ireth Telrúnya]

Oh I knew all the dragons in M-E are probably bad.
Evil I don't want to be, because in the end, evil is still not as smart as the good. Evil beings have this illusion they have it all together, but in truth they don't have anything.
Smaug was killed as well as Balrog, you see?

 

[Deleted member 3778]

And what's wrong with being evil? Being evil is what makes a balrog so awsome .

do you mean "cool, smooth, sly" kind of evil, or "cruel, disgusting, hateful" evil?

 

[Isthir]

Turin was pretty freakin sweet, I think calling him a mere mortal is not adequate. Moreover, his sword had a mind of his own, and was forged by the dark elf-- a pretty big deal. And, look at the treasure that Smaug amassed-- pretty awesome. Oh yes... And... A flying Dragon would be a far better thing than a balrog, which may or may not fly, even if it does have wings. Also, Balrogs don't even like to go outside, they just live in pits at the bottom of the world. Boring! No question about it-- Dragons are the way to go.

Point for clarification:

Does the Balrog of Moria answer to Sauron?

I shall attempt to answer your question Huan. In all thought on this I would have to say, no, the Balrog did not answer to Sauron. For the Balrogs were made by Morgoth, the Dark Lord of the Dark Lord as it may be. I personally do not believe that Melkor would have given the reigns of control over his creations to his servant. However, it could be argued that the Dark Maia (Sauron) did have control, for indeed he was the highest of Melko's captains and indeed a Maia. I have no proff either way, so count all that as speculation to the answer.

As for being a Balrog or Dragon, I would chose that of the Dragon. Yes, Glaurung was killed by a man, but as stated above, that man was Túrin Turambar who wielded the Black Sword. Túrin was no ordinary, run of the mill, man; and is spoken of in the Second Doom of Mandos. As for his sword, it was crafted by Ëol from a metal that fell from the heavens. To be killed by such a man would honor me, especially after all the anguish and pain that I had caused. Even in the end of Túrin it was Glaurung that killed him, for though he took his own life, it was the actions of the Dragon that brang this thought to him.

-Isthir​

 

[Turin]

do you mean "cool, smooth, sly" kind of evil, or "cruel, disgusting, hateful" evil?

All of them at once . Being good is too boring .

 

[Sarah]

Are there female dragons?

Of course there are. Just ask Donkey:

"Oh, you're a giiiiiiiirl dragon....Well of course you're a giiiiiirl dragon!"

 

[Lantarion]

Wait, I just realized that I've been looking at this question from a purely practical point of view! I haven't been asking myself which I'd rather be but rather which, IMO, would beat the other in combat!

And although both beings are evil by nature, dragons even in Tolkien's works have a sort of unique, witty and independent flare, as well as their beautiful forms, which would make me lean towards picking them.
But I'll stick to my vote, because we Valaraukondili are the menshevists here.

 

[Morgoth]

To be killed by such a man would honor me, especially after all the anguish and pain that I had caused.

And to be killed by Gandalf The Grey, mightiest of the Istari, or Ecthelion, would not honour you? The arguement would come down to, who would win in a fight, Mithrandir, or Turin Turambar? My money's on Gandalf.

 

[Isthir]

And to be killed by Gandalf The Grey, mightiest of the Istari, or Ecthelion, would not honour you? The arguement would come down to, who would win in a fight, Mithrandir, or Turin Turambar? My money's on Gandalf.

Ah yes, it would honor me greatly. To me it would not come down to the fighting situation, but the situation of the fighters. For Olórin was the of the Maiar, while Turíin Turambar was that of the mortal race of Men. In my mind Mithrandir would be expected to win in most fights, while Turambar faced much greater odds stacked against him. I will also state that I hail Olórin, for great were his deeds.

-Isthir​

 

[Isthir]

Odd it seems, for a thought occured to me as I posted the above post. For that post would make it seem that the Dragon's defeat would make it lesser of a being. This is not how I see it, though at this time I cannot explain the reasons. I blame sleep depravation. I simply figured that I would post and say that I know of the implications that my post has.

-Isthir
​

 

[Lantarion]

Arvedui, sorry I didn't answer your points before! Here is my response.

Why were few ever defeated in combat?
Because they were few to begin with!I am not an expert on Balrogs, but if I am not totally wrong, I think the number of Balrogs never exeeded seven, right? And all of them were killed in hand-to-hand combat weren't they? Echtelion and Glorfindel each killed one in the Sack of Gondolin. And during the War of Wrath

Yes you're right, a far as I know. But you must take into account the stature of the Elves who fought and killed these Balrogs; and what I suggested as a theory before was that the natural capacity of Elves to move between the Seen and Unseen (for which I have minimal proof, it's true) would be the only explanation for their feats.
I mean think about it: a Valarauko sonsists entirely of 'shadow and flame', and for 'shadow' we might just as easily use a term like 'ethereal essense'; in other words it would be the same as trying to kill an actual shadow, or the wind. And as Gandalf says, swords would have done nothing to harm Durin's Bane. And the fact remains that the only people ever to have killed a Balrog have either been extremely potent Quendi or Maiar!

I really think that you have lost something if you think that the dragons didn't spread fear before them. And besides, dragons were able to paralyze any warrior through their mental strength, without having to rely on fear alone...

Yes excellent point, I didn't take that into consideration. I will admit that Dragons convey fear in most creatures, but that is due largely to their sheer size and bulk, and their impressive 'armour' and pyrotechnics. As for the hypnosis-type mind control, yes that is a huge advantage that Dragons have over Balrogs. But it is all relative, IMO; could Smaug have controlled Gandalf as the White? I don't think so, but that's just a suggestion.
But the fact remains that Dragons were wholly existant in the Seen world, and were vulnerable because they were made of flesh and bone. Just look at what was needed to kill Smaug; a single arrow! In that sense I would say that Balrogs had a clear advantage, because they existed only in ethereal substance in the Seen world.