Talk:Balrog/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Bali Raj"?

Is there any evidence of a connection between the Balrogs and Bali Raj other than the similarity of their names? I'll happily accept it if there is, but I'm really not sure that Tolkien worked this way, and the entry on Bali Raj doesn't sound at all like a Balrog to me. I think I'll remove the comment from the main article until more evidence is given; at that point, I would suggest that information like this might fit better in the "Miscellaneous" section. --Steuard 19:59, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Are the names even that similar? IIRC "Raj" is pronounced "Raash", not "Rog" or "Rajg". [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 21:28, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wings Argument

I've been cleaning up this section. I don't want to unbalance it further...I already feel that there's too many references in the "against wings" camp and not enough in the "for wings" camp, based on size alone. However, the fact is most of the "for wings" section were actually "against" counterarguments. I've cleaned up a lot of it, but further "for" references would be very helpful, since I'm not an expert.--MikeJ9919 03:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to ask what people would think of removing the forth sentence in the first paragraph of the against wings section, "A person would have to be pretty stupid to buy this argument though." as it seems to serve no purpose other then to insult. Considering that 5th sentence accomplishes what other auxiliary value it may yield, I don't feel that helps the argument against wings in way.

I personally have no oppinion on this matter otherwise.

That sentence is pointless and detrimental to the argument and my only guess would be that it was from someone who truly believed that Balrogs had wings, as an act of vandalism or did not understand that Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinion or did not know the difference between fact and opinion. I'll remove that sentence, seeing as it doesn't add anything to the page whatsoever.

Thanks!=)

I haven't read this article before, but it's clear that the 'wings' argument is way too long. It's longer than the rest of the article. DJ Clayworth 14:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's one of the oldest and most consistant sources of flamewars on the net. People get into the largest, stupidest arguements, and no one's ever yet come up with anything more to add to it. They go through the same very few arguements that's everyone's heard, and then there's nothing else left when nobody changes their mind, so it turns into mass flamage. Hence why the section is so large. Honestly it's a notable enough controversy to be quite worth including. In the end it's a simple case of there not being enough available info for there to be an undoubted 'right' answer.

For my personal feelings on the subject, I take a bent somewhere between both camps, that manages to take BOTH of the two controversial lines literally. Being creatures of shadow and flame, just as the first line suggests, they do have wings...formed out of the shadow that is one of their two main elements(the other being fire). They're probably not 'physical' wings(which would explain the no-flying), but they are indeed definetly wings, and quite present as part of their form, but mainly cosmetic(to inspire fear, most likely). -Graptor 66.161.205.26 17:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need counter- and pro-arguments in this article? It seems to be original research no matter what, and we may be best off pointing to some of the excellent discussions online such as Steuard's Tolkien FAQ (which addresses both sides). This article should not attempt to push either POV but at most report on the issue very briefly: if the argument must be adressed in the Wikipedia it should probably be another article (Balrog wings argument or whatever). -- Jordi·✆ 08:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It does feel like the arguments about the Balrog's wings and appearance here take up a disproportionate fraction of the article: there's no need to subject casual readers to the obsessive nitpicking of us fans. :) I appreciate your compliment on my FAQ, and I agree that a link to that brief discussion might be the best bet here (self-promoting though my vote might appear). On the other hand, I know at least one "pro-wing" proponent who (as I recall) thinks that my FAQ is hopelessly biased in the anti-wing direction, so presenting a handful of links on the subject could be reasonable. (I've included a few of them along with Conrad Dunkerson's Balrog essays on my website.)--Steuard 23:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There was an edit to this page asserting (1) that we're idiots and (2) that the Silmarilion says that Balrogs had wings. I reverted over it, but I wanted to ask if anyone knows where the editor might've been referring to with his second assertion. I don't think there is supporting evidence in the article which refers to the Silmarilion, but I could be wrong. Petronivs 15:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Silmarillion itself doesn't specifically declare that Balrogs have wings, but one of the later HoME books does actually describe Balrogs as "flying over mountains" (I think it's Morgoth's Ring, but I don't have the exact text as the book is in a different city than myself.) It's possible to interpret that sentence as metaphorical if you want to, but if you look at the geography of the mountains it describes on one of the Beleriand maps, it becomes fairly apparent that they're actually flying over the mountains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.38.107 (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In The Two Towers it shows the Balrog flapping its wings as it falls down the chasm until Gandalf lands on it and starts hacking at it. 142.26.133.248 (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Two Towers film adaptation it is clearly seen that the wings are too big to be expanded on the abyss, as well as that they are made of bones, fire and shadows. With just fire and shadows it is impossible to fly, so their presence is mere a fear-maker, and not for flying. Claunia (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

After Legolas has shot down the flying Nazgul, Gimli says, that the flying creature brought to his mind Balrog's shadow, which actually states, that the shadow was just a shadow. (The Fellowship of the Ring, Book 2, Chapter 9) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.122.7 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we know. Some, however, read that as saying only that the Balrog had a shadow. We've all been over this territory with a fine-toothed comb several times; there is nothing new and no smoking gun to settle the argument definitively. See, e.g., Colin Dunkerson's article. -- Elphion (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You could also read that the term shadow used by Gimli refers the abstract concept of a shadow that one feels from fear (the shadow of war for example doesn't actually exist). Carl Sixsmith (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why remove "and Gandalf"?

A recent revision of the article by Pav removed the words "and Gandalf" that came after "The Balrogs were originally Maiar, of the same order as Sauron". I'm curious to know why. It's not that I'm dead set against the change, but I felt that mentioning two different "familiar examples" of Maiar to illustrate the concept was a good thing. How do other people feel about this change?--Steuard 16:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I would go for "and Gandalf" as well. Not just because it balances the example (a good guy and a bad guy, as well as giving some inkling that Maiar have different levels of power) but because it is extremely relevant. In fact, more relevant, since Gandalf is the one who ends up fighting the balrog, at which point it is extremely useful to note that they both of the same order of being. I'll give someone else a chance to comment before reinstating it, though. -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with this as well. I think that people reading about Balrog may not neccesarily go off and read about the Maiar to find out the Gandalf is also one of them. Those two little words can yield a much deeper understanding pertaining to the Balrogs origin and relation to rest of Middle Earth and it's characters that the reader may not of had otherwise.

Wait where was it stated he was a miair it said he was called an istari —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.44.153 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wings in the Battle For Middle-Earth

I just added a few lines in the argument for their being wings, pointing out that in the game The Battle for Middle-Earth, the Balrog definitely has wings and uses them to fly for short periods. However I am not sure if this is legitimate evidence because details like this were decided by New Line Cinema, not by Tolkien. User:68.83.248.11

It's not legitimate evidence. No one disputes that the movie version had wings. The question is whether Tolkien originally intended for balrogs to have wings. —Lowellian (talk) 07:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

It still might be a good thing to note just to be thorough, although maybe in the paragraph introducing the reason why people are arguing about this in the first place ie "In the game and the movie balrog had wings, yet whether or not tolkien intended for the bal...". Not as an argument.

It's worth mentioning that Peter Jackson's Balrog has wings. Briefly. All derivatitve material does not need to be enumerated. That particular game is really only a minor blip on the radar of the Tolkien fan community. The argument predates the films (and will probably outlive them). -Aranel (Sarah) 14:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

makes sense.

I believe that the Balrog should have wings in BFME, and that Tolkien intended for them to have wings. But, Tolkien's ideas aside, EA only got rights for the movies, and so could only use the Balrog as seen in the movies-with wings. Also, it says it does not appear that the Balrog could fly in the movie, but it could. As it was falling, the crack it was falling through was too small to allow it's wings to function and you see it attempt to take flight as it falls towards the water int Two Towers, but it doesn't have enough time to take full flight and crashes.Cetanu 22:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be noteworthy to mention interpretations in the media, however it should be made clear that interpretations are not always accurate. (Miguel Wonham 17:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

NPOV attempt

As somebody who has no preference of winged Balrogs over non-winged Balrogs, i'd like to try an NPOV-ing of this article. Also, it would be nice (especially for those readers who only know the Balrog from the LotR films), to clearly differentiate between LotR and Silmarillion mentionings of Balrogs. Therefore, I'd suggest restructuring the article as follows:

• General introduction to Balrogs (both in LotR and as a species)
• Balrogs in the Silmarillion (using 'Balrogs Briefly' as basis, though it would be nice if someone could expand on it)
• The Balrog in LotR (anybody want to volunteer to make this a nice piece?)
• The Ambiguous Appearance of the Balrog (including the mention of wings of course!)
• Miscellaneous

Does this look like a good compromise? --The Minister of War 11:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

After hearing no objections, Reworked the article to focus on topics rather than arguments. Removed NPOV tag; thought this was a stretch of the NPOV idea anyway... --The Minister of War 10:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Picture?

Is this the best picture we can find? The balrog in Jackson's LotR was a triumph of CG - and answered my speculation as to whether a balrog could even be represented satisfactorily in a movie - but this picture barely features the balrog at all! MrCheshire 05:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with using a movie picture is that the movie balrog had discrepencies with the literary discription. However, a better picture would be beneficial, if one can be found. (Miguel Wonham 17:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

Image of Balrog too dark?

On my screen, the Balrog is too dark to properly see. This might be appropriate for Balrog but it's not so good if some people can't see what it looks like... --Jonathan Drain 19:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[1]

Agreed. I also can hardly see the image on my computer. Pnkrockr 16:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Aye. Too Dark. A clearer image would be preferable. --Steerpike 23:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Lungothrin

Does Lungothrin really have to be linked, since it redirects here? And for that matter, could we make an actual page on Lungothrin? I've read that he was Melkor's chief bodyguard, but I don't know if that is canon or not. -- SFH 19:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Didnt know it was redirected! Sure, you can write an article on Lungothrin. Sad to say, dont know anything about him (/her?) :-) The Minister of War ^(Peace) 16:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Dinosaur

The balrog is suppossed to be the last of an ancient spieces. It could have been a Dinosaur Batzarro 10:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"D'oh" Kinda sums it up--Gothaur (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Picture of the Balrog

I would suggest that we remove the image of the Balrog, as the movie Balrog does not remotely resemble the textual Balrog. It would only serve to misguide viewers of the article. Enough people have been misguided by movie stills, especially in the case of Ents and Balrogs. Barnikel

I suggest moving the picture down to the "Portrayals" section )or whatever it has been called here), and balancing it with an alternative interpretation, if that is possible. I agree that this picture should not be up front. Carcharoth 12:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You are all intimidatingly serious

I am struck by the resemblance to the Balrog of the "Monster From The Id" from Forbidden Planet. --Harrylentil 04:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Could not fly?

In the "Adaptations" section:

"However, during the fight with Gandalf, the Balrog could not fly because the physical characteristics of the wing did not permit flight (they did not have any sort of flesh on them, but like the rest of the Balrog's body appeared to be made out of shadow)."

I don't know exactly what the books have to say about this, but my impression from watching the film is that the Balrog could fly (as we see in his entrance). The reason he could not fly while fighting Gandalf was that the abyss was too narrow for him to properly orient himself and flap his wings, not to mention the continual bashing against the cliff face. We don't know what happened after the pair finally hit the underground lake.

-- Anon (11:50, 09 September 2006 (AEST))

I disagree. The Balrog could not fly, even if he had wings. When he made the enterance to the bridge, he had jumped down from above them, but did not Fly down to them. How ever, I do agree with the falling bit. Even if he could fly, he wouldn't have been able to fly upon fighting Gandolf. However, if this was the case, he could have flown back up after he and Gandolf fell to the bottom, and although often shown with "Shadow wings" The balrogs are never shown flying. Dokuhebi was here! :D (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How could he have flown when Gandalf was still attacking it. When the Balrog's flames were doused it was severely weakened. 142.26.133.248 (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I prefer to see Balrogs as demonic Chickens. Wings yes, Flight no. If they could fly there are too many times they could have used it to their benefit but do not. The fall of Gondolin... Why didnt they fly into the city, bypassing the wall. Take and open the gates...? They couldnt fly. --Gothaur (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not even if they really had wings as part of their substance, or the darkness around them formed in wing-like shape.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Gandalf vs. Durin's Bane

The wiki states that Gandalf slew the Balrog. But if my memory serves, Gandalf only managed to slay the Balrog in the movie adaptation. I seem to remember the book stating that they fought for a time and then the Balrog fled into the darkness under the earth. Could someone with a copy of FotR please confirm this?

--Bsigil 22:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The movie version is fairly faithful to the events outlined in the book—however highly abridged. Some of Gandalf's voice over in the film is taken verbatim from the text. The film omits Gandalf tracking the balrog through the dungeons and the slime, but alludes to it with Frodo's dream/vision at the begining of the film. —Malber (talk • contribs) 12:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Gandalf did indeed slay the Balrog…in fact the movie version is somewhat toned down. If I recall correctly, when Gandalf cast the Balrog down from the top of the mountain, it broke down the side of the mountain:

I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high place, and broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin.

— Gandalf, Balrogs at The Encyclopedia of Arda

HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this wrong?

While some contend that such a doorway seems unlikely to be passable for a creature much larger than man-sized without destroying the passage, others take this as Tolkien's reference to the vast number of orcs being channelled through a particularly large passageway fit for an immense Balrog.

I just can't picture the italicised bit. Jackson-influenced, possibly? The Orc attackers fled after thirteen of them had fallen. They can't be possibly in the hundreds, as this apparently implies... I just rephrased it to " others interpret this as a vast number of orcs passing through a particularly large passageway, through which a Balrog could fit.", though. This might be all speculation, though, unless we can cite sources, as in the wing issue... Uthanc 00:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section ("Popular culture")

I removed it. Almost none of those facts could ever be integrated into the article, and there's no need to start writing about the Balrog's influence on popular culture: that should be discussed along with Tolkein's other influences on modern fantasy. Almost none of the items even had to do specifically with the Tolkein creature. However, there was this one:

• The Balrog in Peter Jackson's film bears a strong resemblance to the classic demon-skull drawing by Glenn Danzig, used on the album covers for the bands Samhain and Danzig (band), in addition to resembling the eponymous character from the Diablo computer games. In Diablo and Diablo 2 (in Hell (Act IV)), one of the creatures is the Balrog.

That might be relevant to the article, but it needs sourcing from something reliable, because any demon you create will probably look somewhat like something. Mangojuice^talk 20:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Shape Changing (Winged or Wingless)

The assertion was added that Balrogs had fixed shape because they were 'so evil'. As I understood it, a Vala/Maia losing the ability to change shape came from investing too much power in the physical world, as in Morgoth and Sauron. Plus, I don't think Balrogs were ever stated as being unable to change shape. Does anyone know more on this? Petronivs 14:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Balrog of Moria - definitely not Jackson-sized (at first, if it could shapeshift)

Isn't this clear, readers? The Balrog passes through Balin's chamber, right? Uthanc 17:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Read somewhere they were in the region of 15ft. "Then leapt Ecthelion lord of the Fountain, fairest of the Noldoli, full at Gothmog even as he raised his whip, and his helm that had a spike upon it he drave into that evil breast, and he twined his legs about his foeman's thighs; and the Balrog yelled and fell forward..."
Book of Lost Tales
It implies that a Balrog is large but not massive - not >20ft

So guesstimate. Your legs wrapped around a figure's thighs. Your head is slightly lower than chest level. Allows for the spike.... A very rough guess no less than 11 ft, no greater than 15ft. Any greater than this, and to my mind you cant wrap you legs around the figure full stop or reach his chest with a spiked helmet.
--Gothaur (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What can kill a Balrog

When the article says "a person or thing of equall or greater power" could defeat a balrog does that mean someone like, Saruman could kill one, or The Dead Men of Dunharrow? I'm confused about this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.26.5 (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically a Balrog can not be "killed" their physical body can be destroyed but as maia their spirit would live on, however in a similar way to Saruman's "death" they have lost the power to take shape again, unlike Gandalf and Glorfindel. Carl Sixsmith 18:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

MERP naming of Balrog incorrect?

In 'other media' it is stated that the MERP role playing books name the Moria Balrog 'Muar'. I checked several of the MERP books and don't see anywhere that he is referred to 'Muar' instead of 'The Balrog'. Some MERP books I checked were 2900 (Moria the Dwarvin City) 2011 (Moria), and 8002 (Lords of Middle Earth). In page 34 of the latter (8002) book the heading is 'Maiar/Balrog of Moria', so possibly the creators of the game Angband (where there is a unique creature named "Muar the Balrog") confused "Maiar" with "Muar" in the 8002 MERP book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.107.230 (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Major slimming

I have rewritten the Characteristics section (merging in Weaponry as well), ditching vast amounts of poorly written argument about Size and Wings. There is no point in reproducing the argument blow-by-blow here; there are many sites on the Web for the curious, and this argument will not be settled here. Elphion (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I also merged Number in with Characteristics, albeit removing most of the detail. Elphion (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Balrog of Moria's awakening.

Was the Balrog awoken by the dwarves in the mine, or by the call of Mordor? I remember in the movie it mentioned that is was awoken by the dwarves, but I don't remember if that was the case in the book. Can someone clarify for me? Aragorn245 (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tolkien approaches his narrative as history, and this is the sort of thing that cannot be known historically (short of interviewing the Balrog itself). The narrative for Durin's Folk in Appendix A mentions both possibilities: that the Dwarves woke it, or that they simply freed it from where Sauron's will had already woken it. (Of course, there's no way to know whether it was actually asleep in anything other than a figurative sense.)  Elphion (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we give both possibilities in the article then? Aragorn245 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done.  Elphion (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

there's a description of Balrogs in the Silmarillion in the chapter "Of The Enemies".

"For of the Maiar many were drawn to his splendour in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegiance down into his darkness; and others he corrupted afterwards to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, demons of terror."

although there are more descriptions in silmarillion, this one kind of indicates that they had a steady shape and appearance. this text is of the final version of Silmarillion.–Jimmakos (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"kind of indicates that they had a steady shape and appearance"? It doesn't really address either. The arguments I've seen (both pro and con) are quite consistent with that passage. Even Tolkien describes the Balrog of Moria as "bursting into new flame" when wizard and balrog emerge on the peak of Zirak-zigal. Elphion (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

LotRO: Mines of Moria

I added a sentance in adaptations sections about the upcoming LotRO expansion and player's ability to encounter Durin's Bane. I didn't provide the reference (I was about to). My contribution was reverted per WP: CRYSTAL and WP:TRIVIA. If lesser balrog Thaurlach deserves a whole paragraph I se no reason not to include LotRO's adaptation of the Durin's Bane. Expansion itself is confirmed, game is in late stages of beta and Non-Disclosure Agreement has been lifted. My source (http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/45291) includes actual footage of the Durin's Bane. I will not revert the change duo to fact that this is one of my first edits, am I missing something else? Melmann (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Melmann, although I would suggest an expansion to more than just one sentance, that's perhaps why it appeared as trivia. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Good article?

Would this article qualify to be a good article? I have had a look at the guidelines, and I think it does all the things it is supposed to. I thought I'd check here first before I nominate it. Would somebody who knows Wikipedia better than me give me their opinion? Thanks, Darth Newdar (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dragons and Balrogs

Excuse my English but doesn't "yet of all are they [dragons] the most powerful, save it be the Balrogs only." mean that the dragons are 2nd most powerful after the Balrogs? This would make more sense as the Balrog can do battle with a Maia like Gandalf while the dragon in "The Hobbit" was killed by an arrow. 98.113.199.242 (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What's your question then? Darth Newdar (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the question relates to several attempts to add a statement to this article saying that balrogs are more powerful than dragons. But the clause in Tolkien's statement, "save it be the Balrogs only", is in subjunctive mood, indicating uncertainty. The sentence means something like: Dragons are the most powerful, except perhaps for Balrogs. An arrow won't settle the matter -- several powerful creatures in Tolkien are destroyed by mishap. In earlier writings, Tolkien describes elves, even men, killing balrogs in battle. This isn't a game: creature A doesn't necessarily trump creature B; creatures vary in their natural abilities, in what they are effective at fighting, in what their weak points are. Elphion (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this sentence make sense?

Excuse me but look at this sentence:

"Such creatures first appeared in print in his novel The Lord of the Rings, though they figured in earlier writings that posthumously appeared in The Silmarillion and other books."

Which is basically saying that balrog first appeared in the Lord of The Rings while right in the next sentence the person says that they first appeared in the Silmarillion.

This makes no sense.

I think it does. The important bit is first appeared in print. What it means is that Balrogs originally appeared in The Lord of the Rings; however, Tolkien wrote The Silmarillion before The Lord of the Rings, even though The Silmarillion was published later. Do you see? So the sentence is correct in saying that the Balrogs "first appeared in print" in The Lord of the Rings, although they featured in his earlier writings (he wrote them earlier), which were published later. Hopefully that makes sense :) Darth Newdar ^talk 13:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Illustration

No one would likely suggest leading off the article with an image of the Jackson movie version of the Balrog, basically saying "This is what a Balrog looks like." Those images are further down under Adaptations. Loback has done his own interpretation which does not reflect Tolkien's own ideas. The poor quality of the work is secondary. 70.53.108.40 (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that leading with this image (or indeed any image) could be misleading. Including "Artist's interpretation" in the caption would be a good idea. Disagree that the art is of poor quality (though the reduction is pretty poor quality, a different issue); it's just highly stylized. In what regards does the image not reflect Tolkien's ideas (given that those changed significantly over time)? Elphion (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"History", as revised by cevkiv

I reverted the following version of Balrog#History by user:cevkiv, but there is much in here that we might want to retain; so I'm moving the text here. Part of cevkiv's motivation was to ameliorate the in-universe style of the discussion. It's still very much in-universe, but it explains some of the points so that people unfamiliar with the books can make some sense of the discussion. There's something of a philosophical question here (more a matter of striking the right balance): how much should be described inline, how much to rely on links for.

We need to be careful about "order". It's clear that both Valar and Maiar varied in ability; it's more a matter of degree than clear-cut "orders" — Tolkien uses "order" to describe the Istari (a much smaller, more homogeneous group). Also, "Middle-earth" is not "Arda", as implied below. I find other points below misleading as well (e.g., Melkor appears to be known as the Black Enemy when released).

-- Elphion (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Balrogs were originally Maiar, which are the lesser or the two orders of entities which created, shaped, ruled and maintained Middle-earth. For an estimation of their abilities, other notable Maia include Sauron, Saruman the White, Gandalf the Grey and Melian.

Early in the history of Middle-earth the Balrogs were corrupted by Melkor, one of the higher order of entities called Vala, who serves as the main antagonist of the The Silmarillion. This seduction takes place before Arda was created (Arda is the name of Middle-earth in the elvish language Quenya)

At the start of the First Age, the epoch in Middle-earth's history where the Elves first awoke, the Vala captured Melkor and destroyed his fortresses, Utumno and Angband. The Vala, however, failed to investigate all of those Fortresses, and the Balrogs, along with other of Melkor's allies, were able to hide and avoid capture.

When Melkor was released from his imprisonment by the Vala, now bearing the epithet of Morgoth (which means 'Black Enemy' in Quenya), was attacked on his return to Middle-earth by a spider-like creature named Ungoliant. His screams, able to be heard across the distance by the Balrogs, brought them out of hiding to his rescue.

A group of elves, the Noldor (meaning those with knowledge), arrived in the region of Middle-earth known as Beleriand in pursuit of Morgoth, who sought to recover the precious gems, known as Silmarils, which Morgoth had stolen. Upon their arrival, the Noldor were attacked by a ground of Morgoth's Orcs which they quickly vanquished. Feanor, the leader of the Noldor, and the creator of the Silmarils, at whose behest the Noldor had persued Morgoth, led the Noldor on towards Angband. They were attack by the Balrogs, and Feanor was mortally wounded by the Lord of the Balrogs, Gothmog. Feanor's sons fought off the Balrogs, but Feanor died of his wounds shortly afterward.

The section of The Silmarillion, called The Lays of Beleriand (which is a region of Middle-earth), The Lay of Leithian mentions Balrog captains leading Orcs into battle: "the Orcs went forth to rape and war, and Balrog captains marched before".

During the sacking of the elvish city of Gondolin by the forces of Morgoth, two Balrogs were slain by the Elves.ref>The Silmarillion, "Quenta Silmarillion", Chapter 13, pp. 242–3.</ref> An elf named Ecthelion of the Fountain fought the Lord of the Balrogs, Gothmog, and "each slew the other." Another elf, Glorfindel (who is the same Glorfindel later encountered in the Lord of the Rings), fought a Balrog who attempted to stop a group from escaping from the city. As with Ecthelion and Gothmag, they both died (in a fall from the mountainside).

The First Age of Middle-earth was ended in the conflict called the War of Wrath. At this time most of the Balrogs were destroyed. At least one, however, who would come to be known as Durin's Bane, escaped death, and hid in "caverns at the roots of the earth." In the year 1980 of the Third Age of Middle-earth (the same epoch during which The Lord of the Rings takes place) the Dwarves of Khazad-dûm, also named Moria, the principal dwarven city, mined and delved so deeply that Durin's Bane was encountered. Whether it was released by the Dwarves, or merely disturbed from some sort of repose, is uncertain. However, what is stated by Tolkien for certain is that this Balrog slew the King of the Dwarves, Durin VI, and also his son Náin I, thus earning his name of Durin's Bane (see below). The Balrog forced the Dwarves to abandon their city. In ((ME-date|TA|3019)), the Fellowship of the Ring were forced to seek a path through Moria. In the place known as the Chamber of Mazarbul (the chamber of records), the Fellowship were attacked by Orcs, and then by the Balrog. Gandalf, who was at that time the leader of the Fellowship, faced the Balrog at Bridge of Khazad-dûm. He fought and killed the Balrog, but himself was slain at the same time (he would shortly be resurrected and sent back to Middle-earth, this time as the more powerful Gandalf the White).

References

Appearance

Balrogs have wings! Yes they do, read the passages again! But of course I'm a psychic! 173.55.109.136 (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Balrog that was found in Moria

I think the section heading should be "Durin's Bane" instead of "Balrog of Moria" because the Balrog was in fact 'a Balrog of Morgoth'. This could confuse some people. Okeekobee (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Vague shapeshifting paragraph

I recently removed this paragraph and the sentence after it:

"Tolkien says of the Valar (including the Maiar) that they can change their shape at will, and move unclad in the raiment of the world, meaning invisible and without form. But it seems that Morgoth, Sauron, and their associated Maiar could lose this ability: Morgoth, for example, was unable to heal his burns from the Silmarils or wounds from Fingolfin and Thorondor; and Sauron lost his ability to assume a fair-seeming form after his physical body was destroyed in the downfall of Númenor.

Tolkien does not address this specifically for Balrogs."

None of this gives any useful information about Balrogs, so I'd like an explanation for reverting this edit. -- Fyrefly (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The passage you deleted is relevant since Balrogs are in fact Maiar, specifically, Maiar associated with Morgoth. It provides context for the discussion immediately following:

In "the Bridge of Khazad-dûm" in The Fellowship of the Ring, the Balrog appears "like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater". Though previously the Balrog had entered the "large square chamber" of Mazarbul, at the Bridge of Khazad-dûm it "drew itself to a great height, and its wings spread from wall to wall" in what was a vast hall.

The Balrog's size and shape, therefore, are not given precisely. When Gandalf threw it from the peak of Zirakzigil, the Balrog "broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin".[24]

There was -- many years ago -- disagreement here over whether the Balrog was corporeal or merely a spirit of flame, and how (if corporeal) it could be so changeable in size, or how (if "angelic") it could not simply slip away from Gandalf. The passage you deleted (together with the part you left intact) was distilled from that discussion. If you feel that the relevance is unclear, we should add some more verbiage to make the connection clearer, but it is relevant and should not be deleted.

-- Elphion (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

old comment

Thanks, Zoe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 July 2002‎ (UTC)

You're welcome. Please edit as necessary on any of my Middle-earth entries. -- Zoe 23:31, 24 July 2002‎ (UTC)