Wings or No?

[Theoden_king]

I always thought that the balrog had wings but as they were made of shadow it couldn't use them to fly

[Wonko The Sane]

Correction:

I've watched TT in the past week and Snaga and I had a lengthy in-theatre discussion about the fact that PJ's Balrog DID in fact have wings.
They're rather like bat wings and it does appear that he may have been able to use them..perhaps in the same way a chicken does?
A chicken can flutter or use its wings to lift it to a perch but it can't fly for any distance.
An ostrich and a penguin are also flightless birds so having wings but not being able to fly is possible.
Also in some cases amongst insects they have vestigial wings (much like the vestigial tail that humans have while in the womb) that are completely useless.

[Ithrynluin]

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
Correction:

I've watched TT in the past week and Snaga and I had a lengthy in-theatre discussion about the fact that PJ's Balrog DID in fact have wings.

That is the worst option imaginable. A balrog having "chicken" wings just for decoration (and for making it look totally ridiculous)?
I'd rather have a wingless Balrog then, thank you very much.:p

Why would Balrogs, who are Maiar, assume a shape with some useless chicken wings? Either wings or no wings, no option in between.

[Wonko The Sane]

Don't look at the wings as useless becasue:

a) It's only your opinion that the wings make them look stupid. Maybe they liked them!

and b) Chicken's wings are NOT useless!! Balrogs don't NEED to fly for long distances and probably aren't built for it anyway. But having wings that could carry them short distances, say in battle for example, might have been QUITE useful!

[Jesse]

Definately! Balrogs had wings, Gandalf stabbed his sword into one of them. They could fly.

[Celebithil]

My immediate thought is yes they did have wings. However (and I admit I didn't read the whole thread so if this has been asked before please tell me to shut up) could it be possible that there are Balrogs with wings and Balrogs without as there are with dragons. Just a though.

[Gandalf White]

Originally posted by Jesse
Definately! Balrogs had wings, Gandalf stabbed his sworfd into one of them. They could fly. I think if the Balrog could use it's wings it would've flown after crashing through the bridge.
Personally, the very first time I read LotR I imagined the Balrog with wings, but worn like a cape and not used for flying. I've never changed my opinion since.

[Elendil3119]

Yay! There's someone who agrees with me! I also think the balrog had wings, but could not use them.:D

[Tuilin]

I think Balrogs have wings too...
I have always pictured them with wings.
The Moria-balrog flew to Moria, didnt it?

[Melko Belcha]

Can someone tell me where there is a physical description of the wings?

You can't because there never is one. Let's see the pro-wing people claim that "and its wings were spread from wall to wall" as proof that they are physical wings, but is not!

"and its wings were spread from wall to wall" ok so where is the description of the wings? Right before. "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings"
So the decription of the wings is the shadow that surronds the Balrog.

What is shadow? Tolkien's shadow isn't your normal shadow cast when light is being blocked, the Balrogs shadow isn't just a lack of light, but a region of darkness that they carry around with them. So the shadow is something the Balrog can control just as Sauron controls the "wings of shadow" released by Mount Doom.

I have heard people say that if Tolkien had meant shadow like wings then he would have wrote " and the shadow like wings were spread from wall to wall". Why? He has already described the wings "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings". How do you see that the shadow becomes physical wings within the passage. Tolkien was a presicon writer and if he had meant phsyical wings he would have wrote in in the description of the Balrog.
"What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape, maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it."
Where is there any mention of phsyical wings?

People also say that Balrogs can fly because of a few quotes, "flying from Thangorodrim", and "and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum". Well if the first is to be taken literaly then so does this passage, "Gandalf came flying down the steps and fell to the ground in the midst of the Company". So if the Balrog can fly then so can Gandalf! Winged speed is used by many writes to discribe fast travel, but usually not to creatures that have wings, you wouldn't describe a bird flying at winged speed, of course it's moving at winged speed.

Any pro wing argument you have I can find a way to counter it, but in truth the question can never be answered.

[JeffF.]

...if the Balrog could use its wings then it would not have fallen into the chasm when Gandalf destroyed the bridge.

[Ithrynluin]

The Balrog could have been exhausted from the confrontation with Gandalf. The same way that Gandalf could have been exhausted from it and just let go of the bridge.

;)

[Beleg]

Cor! People don't get bored by this topic! J.K. Anyway, i dont think the Balrog had wings, and the Moria Balrog could have found numerous Different ways to be transported to Moria.

[Ol'gaffer]

Why do you think there were nine nazgul with their flying beasts?

[Jesse]

Weren't those beasts dragons? I thought they looked like dragons??

[christopher]

I think the Balrog could have had wings, but perhaps they were no longer used, like a chicken, or even better, like an ostrich. However, this would indicate some sort of evolution, and I do not know whether the Balrog's were around long enough to be part of some sort of change, and indeed if they could have offspring- an essential thing for evolution.
Of course, the Balrog could have had wings, but since he had been trapped under the mountain for so long, was a bit out of practise, or had lost the knowledge how to use them.
If one looks at a swan or a duck, or indeed many other birds, one sees that they need a horizontal movement in order to take off, and since the Balrog was fall down, he could not produce the movement to take off. Or perhaps the chasm was to narrow for the Balrog to spread its wings.

[BlackCaptain]

Originally posted by Jesse
Weren't those beasts dragons? I thought they looked like dragons??

No... They were never given names, and they sure arent Dragons. All the Dragons in Middle Earth were after Smaug died. If there were any left they were the Cold-Drakes far far north.

Melo Balcha provided some very good quotes before this, saying that Balrogs FLEW from Thangongdorim (sp?). I say yes, they do have wings.

[Melko Belcha]

The shadow stretched out like two vast wings that spread from wall to wall.

That is what you get when you put the two passages together and there is no hint of physical wings.

Morgulking you should reread my post because I proved that the passage about the Balrog flying from Thangorodrim is no proof to Balrogs having wings. Tolkien uses fly and flew many times in his writing. If you take that one sentance seriously then apparently the Rohirrim fly, Gandalf flys, entire armies could fly.

Just give me one quote that shows physical wings and then I will accept that they have wings, but I have studied this for 10 years and trust me you will not find one.

[Gandalf White]

That's what makes this matter so interesting, the fact that two people can hold entirely different opinions, and back them up as well.
...and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. and It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall... One party can say that these refer to the same thing, wings as shadows, whereas the other group can say the first passage describes the shadow, and the next talks of actual, physical wings. I am with the second party.

and its wings were spread from wall to wall" ok so where is the description of the wings? Right before. "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings" So the decription of the wings is the shadow that surronds the Balrog. There is no description given of the wings, nor does their need to be! The simple statement is enough. And you have your reasoning backwards. The description of the wings is the shadow that surrounds the Balrog, you say. Actually, the description of the shadow was the likening of it to wings.

[Melko Belcha]

Ever since The Book of Lost Tales the Balrogs have been refered to as being either wrapped in darkness or shadow. Tolkien has described the Balrogs many of times throughout the writing of The Silmarillion and in many letters he wrote and they are always described with shadows or darkness surronding them.
The only referance to wings is those two lines out of over 50 years of writings.
I know Tolkien's image of Balrogs changed over time, but the shadow was there from the begining.
Plus it says shadow like two vast wings, not wings like shadow.

In the description it plainly states shadow.
"What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape, maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it."
How anybody can see wings in that passage is beyond me.

[olorin the maia]

but in the passage just a few sentences later is stated:

...and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall;

The Author does this numerous times through out his works, as I have said elsewhere. Things are left deliberately unclear and indistinct. Part of his story-telling. But I would say the monster had wings. And wrapped itself in shadow.

[Tuilin]

The balrog that glorfindel slew fell down and thats why it died(well...)right?
So it cant have had useable wings.

[Melko Belcha]

...and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.

Why do people look this line over? And why do people ignore the word like? Lets see what the dictionary says.
like = having the same characteristics; similar; equal. 1 similar to 2 similarity to /to sing like a bird/ 3 characteristic of /not like her to cry/ 4 in the mood for /to feel like sleeping/ 5 indicative of /it looks like rain/ 6 as for example/ fruit, like pears and plums.

Also it say 'the shadow' not 'a shadow'. Big differance.

[BlackCaptain]

Since there is obviously no proof of Balrogs having wings, I agree with the very convincing Melo Belcha.

[olorin the maia]

so what spread out from wall to wall in Moria? Pantaloons?

Fifty years of writings, forsooth! One declarative phrase seems to be enough, in this case:

...and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall;

that's not to say the Balrog's wings were used for flight, nor that every Balrog had wings.

[Melko Belcha]

I could say that I spread my arms out like two vast wings, and then my wings spread from wall to wall, but that dosen't mean I have wings.

What spread from wall to wall was the shadow, the cloak of darkness.

The shadow was not cast by wings the Balrog was wrapped in it. It was part of his being.

[BlackCaptain]

I agree... What's so hard to understand about it?

[olorin the maia]

True enough. Certainly, the darkness/shadow was part of the being of the Balrog.
But your example

I could say that I spread my arms out like two vast wings, and then my wings spread from wall to wall, but that dosen't mean I have wings.


is not what was written, nor, I daresay, is it the intent of the Author. In a theme-writing class, Melkor, you'd be hard-pressed to defend jumping from simile to metaphor in that manner.

The figure of speech you cite comparing shadow to wings is an example of simile, and a good one, for the time and place it is used. JRRT used many in his writings.

The phrase I quote is not; it is very literal, and really, beyond linguistic interpretation.
So, IMO, the beastie had wings. What they were made of is open to (too much) debate.

And no offense, but I think this dead horse has been beaten enough?:p

[Melko Belcha]

The Treason of Isengard - The Bridge
In B it is said only that the Balrog 'stood facing him': in C 'the Balrog halted facing him, and the shadow about him reached out like great wings'. Immediately afterwards, where in FR the Balrog 'drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread wall to wall'; neither B nor C has the words ' to a great height' nor speaks of the 'wings'.
If Tolkien never entered the line 'and its wings were spread wall to wall' would you still think it had wings?

I will not lie I suck at English, but to me the shadow is as much a part of the Balrog as my arms are to me.

I do agree that this debate can not be solved, but there are people on here that really put up some good points, and this is the first time I have been able to discuss this topic this indepth.

In other words, I respect other peoples views whether they agree with mine or not, and it's nice to have these debates with people who make good arguments.

[olorin the maia]

Likewise, Melkor:) I respect your views. (the odd remark about stretching pantaloons notwithstanding)

To answer your question, probably not. That phrase sort of defines the point. And wings certainly aren't mentioned anywhere else I've looked, although I've not read as deeply as you.

And I agree, the shadow was absolutely part of the Balrog, who probably had control over what it looked like (a prehensile shadow?)

[elf boy]

It seems to me I read it looking for the answer to this exact question, and I came away thinking they had wings...

[Melko Belcha]

This link was posted earlier but I will put it in again.
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm

Read the section on Balrogs, I think it is the best proof that the question can not be answered.

Whether people believe it has wings or not dosen't bother me as long as people accually reads the arguments for both sides before they make their decision.

Elf boy I disagree, but it sounds like you took the time to read through this nonsense so I respect you opinion.

[Diamond Took]

"The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall,"

"The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in hos lefy hand, but in his other hand G;amdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy holted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings..."

From these two quotations of The Lord of the Rings And JRR Tolkien himself, I suspect that the Balrog does infact have wings. :)

[Melko Belcha]

Taken from The Encyclopedia of Arda.

How big is a Balrog? If we follow the pro-wings side of the debate, and assume that it had real wings, it's possible to come up at least some minimum figures. This is because of the classic 'its wings were spread from wall to wall', which means that its wingspan must be at least the width of the hall in which it was standing. What do we know about the hall itself?

"Before them was another cavernous hall. It was loftier and far longer than the one in which they had slept."
"He turned left and sped across the smooth floor of the hall. The distance was greater than it had looked."
"...a slender bridge of stone, without kerb or rail, that spanned the chasm with one curving spring of fifty feet."
All from The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

The hall is gigantic. If the chasm is fifty feet wide, then the entire hall must be at least several hundred feet long. A 'chasm' is by definition longer than it is wide, and the chasm's length defines the width of the hall. So, we can derive a fairly reliable minimum width somewhere in the region of seventy-five to one hundred feet. This is supported by the text, which tells us that the hall was so wide that it needed pillars down the centre to support the roof:

"Down the centre stalked a double line of towering pillars. They were carved like boles of mighty trees whose boughs upheld the roof..."
The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

If the Balrog's wings were real, and literally spread 'from wall to wall', its minimum wingspan is also somewhere approaching one hundred feet. This gives us a Balrog the size of a house, and remember that these are minimum values - it might be even bigger. Many would accept this without a problem - the idea of a gigantic Balrog is quite common, and it's often depicted as being thirty feet high or more, which is consistent with these estimates.

This is an important point, so we'll emphasise it. If the Balrog's wings are real, it follows necessarily that it must have been a monstrous creature with the wingspan of a small airliner.

The objection this raises is quite significant: it's very hard to explain how this behemoth had lived for more than a thousand years in an underground city designed for Dwarves. As a specific example, consider the Chamber of Mazarbul, which appears just before the Company's encounter with the Balrog. There's plenty of textual evidence about the entrance to this room. For example:

"...orcs one after another leaped into the chamber."
The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm


...and, a moment later, they...

"...clustered in the doorway."
The Fellowship of the Ring II 5 The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

This is obviously a fairly narrow opening. Somehow, though, the Balrog manages to follow the orcs into the Chamber through this entrance. If a Balrog is built on the huge scale we've just discussed, it could not possibly have used this narrow entrance.

The logic of this seems inescapable: we have to scale down the Balrog to get him through the door. He can still be of 'a great height' - say ten feet tall or so - but he can't realistically be much larger than this. This idea is supported to an extent by this description from the The History of Middle-earth:

"[the Balrog] strode to the fissure, no more than man-high yet terror seemed to go before it."
The History of Middle-earth Volume VII (The Treason of Isengard), X The Mines of Moria II: The Bridge


This is a rejected draft, so it can't be put forward as any kind of proof. It does give some insight, though, into the kind of scale that Tolkien had in mind for the Balrog. It's also borne out by the fact that he had to 'leap' across the fissure, and that he stepped onto a bridge so narrow that Dwarves could only cross it in single file. These are the actions of a more-or-less man-sized creature, not a giant.

The question of scale is a serious objection to real Balrog wings. If 'its wings were spread from wall to wall' literally refers to real wings, then the Balrog must have been gigantic. For it to get into the Chamber of Mazarbul, though, it can't have been gigantic. If the Balrog isn't gigantic, then 'its wings were spread from wall to wall' can't refer to real wings.

For the anti-wings faction, this is probably as close to a 'proof' as it's possible to get.

[Lantarion]

Hmm, I'd like to hear an actual argument for your opinion.. Providing us with two quotes (which have been posted here several times!) that contradict each other is not very helpful or convincing. ;)

If you're wondering why I say contradictory: in the first paragraph Tolkien writes its wings were spread from wall to wall; seems to be talking about actual, material wings alright..
Then in the next: ...and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. Doesn't seem so concrete now.. "Like two wings" implies a simple analogy, whereas the former quote seems to back up the theory of actual leathery wings.

Now I don't mean to be rude, Diamond, but you would have found this out just by reading through the last fifteen pages of this thread.. ;)

[BlackCaptain]

If the Balrog indeed did follow the orcs through this doorway, and was only 10 feet tall, and its shadow was as long as 100 feet, we can abandon this only 10 feet tall theory. There is no way that anything would omit shadow on that kind of scale... I would assume that Balrogs are around 15-20 feet tall, and did NOT have wings... I agree with Melko Belcha.

I would picture these Balrogs just as i picture the Devil... Fire demons of great stature, but not as big as... the movie per say... portrays them, but monsterous none the less. The 'Shadow' then, would extend only as far as the walls of the room, being less dense as you get further away from the Balrog, and not very dense at the end of this chamber... This provides for some realism, and some extent on imagination

[Jesse]

I agree Morgul-King. The way I picture the Balrog is basically like the Devil. A Fire-consuming, fire-breathing demon who would do anything to get his way. Even if it means ruining lives.

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by MorgulKing
If the Balrog indeed did follow the orcs through this doorway, and was only 10 feet tall, and its shadow was as long as 100 feet, we can abandon this only 10 feet tall theory. There is no way that anything would omit shadow on that kind of scale... I would assume that Balrogs are around 15-20 feet tall, and did NOT have wings... I agree with Melko Belcha.
I believe that JRRT refered to the Balrogs as being about twice the height of the Elves. There are notes that show Elves were about 7ft. tall. Therefore the Balrog would be in the region of 14ft. in height. So your guess seems to be very much in accord with the view of Tolkien himself.

I will look for quotes and post them later. Also it is good to see that someone else also agrees with me about whether I have wings or not. :D

[BlackCaptain]

I really like Gothmog's avatar. I think thats real accurate. Only real balrogs probly look a little less chubby... :D :p

[faila]

could it be that they are real unsubstantial wings? No Im not contradicting myself. They are wings made of shadow..... but they are their. They are madeof darkness, they can change in size It seems to me that the quotes from tolkien say they have wings, but if hey are wings of shadow or darkness than it fixes the size problem does it not?

[Wonko The Sane]

I think we should compromise by using a previously suggested thingie: Maybe SOME balrogs had wings and SOME didn't.

Is that ok?

[BlackCaptain]

That very well may be the correct answer... and it also may not be... The world may never know...

Like how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

THE WORLD MAY NEVER KNOW!!!!

[Wonko The Sane]

Exactly.
And I think my answer is a good compromise.

Case closed. ;)

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
Exactly.
And I think my answer is a good compromise.

Case closed. ;)
Your case may well be closed. But I doubt that it will stop this debate. :D

ps. BlackCaptain, I think you posted in the wrong thread. :) This is the Balrog Wing thread. But it is a good answer about Bombadil. :)

[BlackCaptain]

HAhaha... Whoops... I saw the 'case closed' part and imediately thought about the Tom Bombadil debate. Oh well...

[Wonko The Sane]

Hehe...You're right Gothmog...hehe. :)

But shh...be very quiet and maybe the debate WILL stop...

;) (Everyone will be in awe that we've stopped talking about it and will have to follow suit)

[BlackCaptain]

I don't like the idea of some Balrogs having wings and some not... That just doesnt seem right. If there is never any solid proof, then we best leave it that Balrogs don't have wings. It is in fact alot like the Tom Bombadil topic. There is no answer. We'll never know unless someone stumbles upon some more of Tolkiens lost writings. But I don't like the idea of some having wings and some not, but I can't prove thats wrong.

[Wonko The Sane]

Look...I don't see what's wrong with some having them and some not having them.

If it works for dragons it works for balrogs.

You're just trying to be difficult.
;)

[BlackCaptain]

Youve got a good point there with the Dragons, but that was written about. Tolkien made it clear that there were different kinds of dragons. Some had wings, some were cold drakes, some were just plain old giant serpants. No where did Tolkien write about different types of Balrogs, or ever even write about Balrog's having wings.

[BlackCaptain]

So what if I am trying to be difficult! I wanna keep this debate alive! It is a great one!

[Wonko The Sane]

It can't be that great if you have to post twice in a row like that.

Anyway, if you ask me it doesn't matter if Tolkien didn't write about balrogs in the way I suggested. It leaves my hypothesis (that I stole from whoever had it first) just as likely as any other argument for or against balrogs having wings!

There's just no proof either way, so any answer is just as likely as the other.

Except that Balrogs were in fact giant flaming ducks.
Although there's no proof that they aren't! Hehe. :rolleyes: :cool: :D :p ;)

[Lantarion]

Originally posted by BlackCaptain
I really like Gothmog's avatar. I think thats real accurate. Only real balrogs probly look a little less chubby... :D :p
Accurate?! It looks like a huge lump of burning charcoal! :D

[BlackCaptain]

BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER!!!

*runs away crying*:D

[Wonko The Sane]

Gothmog's avatar looks like a flaming teddy bear! ;) :rolleyes:

[Gothmog]

Now you know why I normaly wear the Shadow. :D

[BlackCaptain]

Cuz it covers up that beer belly??;)

[Gothmog]

Got it in one. :D

[Wonko The Sane]

HAH!!!

If that Balrog wasn't made of FIRE I'd HUG it! ;)

[BlackCaptain]

I'd be careful... His leg looks pretty rough. you might scratch yourself!

[Wonko The Sane]

He's not rough! He's CUDDLY!

[BlackCaptain]

Yeah! Ash and flame are very cuddly!...:rolleyes:

:D

[Wonko The Sane]

In this context they are!!

LOOK AT HOW FLUFFY HE LOOKS!!!

[BlackCaptain]

Fluffy or Flamey? The last time I saw a giant huge demented teddy bear was in the Hunter Reckoning video game:D

[Wonko The Sane]

Fluffy AND flamey!! :D

[Wulf of Dunland]

I didn't memorize everything from the books, so I wouldn't know for a fact B's have wings.
At least I want them to have wings. And it seems more logical to me somehow.

[BlackCaptain]

Logical probly isnt the word... It was probly your first impression;)

[Wonko The Sane]

Hold on now BC, maybe logical IS the word he meant to use.

Maybe he sees a logical reason to assume or suppose Balrog's had wings.

Don't discount his opinion or change his meaning without first giving him a chance to explain.

Perhaps you could have said, "Are you sure logical is what you meant?" Rather than merely stating that logical was the wrong choice of words.

[Gothmog]

What difference does it make? Logic is only used to explain what we already believe anyway. There is no Logical reason for viewing Balrogs with wings or without wings. We each get an impression of what it looks like and then come up with logical reasons to prove our view. :)

Except for me of course. I just look in the Mirror. ;) :D

[BlackCaptain]

I said probly! It is probly the wrong word because I think he was going for the fact that everyones first intuition was that Balrog's have wings, making it intuitional, not logical.

[Elendil3119]

This quote has probably been mentioned before, and if it has, can someone point me to the right page? ;)

From Appendix A, Section III (Durin's Folk):
Thus (the dwarves) roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth.

From this passage I believe it is possible to conclude that the Balrogs did in fact have wings. However, the word "flying" could be interpreted "fleeing", though I think Tolkien would have used "fleeing" had he meant it.

[Gothmog]

But Tolkien has many creatures flying. Orcs fleeing from dwarves. This from the same source.
then Azog laughed, and he lifted up his head of let forth a great yell of triumph; but the cry died in his throat. For he saw that all his host in the valley was in a rout, and the Dwarves when this way and that slaying as they would, and those that could escape from them were flying south, shrieking as they ran. And hard by all the soldiers of his guard lay dead. He turned and fled back towards the Gate.
Elves. This from the Silmarillion
But as the third age of the captivity of Melkor drew on, the Dwarves became troubled, and they spoke to King Thingol, saying that the Valar had not rooted out utterly the evils of the North, and now the remnant, having long multiplied in the dark, were coming forth once more and roaming far and wide. 'There are fell beasts,' they said, 'in the land east of the mountains, and your ancient kindred that dwell there are flying from the plains to the hills.' Also Huan it was that found Lúthien [flying like a shadow surprised by the daylight under the trees, when Celegorm and Curufin rested a while near to the western eaves of Doriath Hobbits, This from The Fellowship of the ring. 'It can't be helped, Sam,' said Frodo sadly. He had suddenly realized that flying from the Shire would mean more painful partings than merely saying farewell to the familiar comforts of Bag End. 'I shall have to go. But' - and here he looked hard at Sam - 'if you really care about me, you will keep that dead secret. See? If you don't, if you even breathe a word of what you've heard here, then I hope Gandalf will turn you into a spotted toad and fill the garden full of grass-snakes.' So the use of that particular quote does not show that Balrogs had wings only that one or more left Thangorodrim in something of a hurry.

[Wonko The Sane]

And another thing in regards to saying "Flying"...Tolkien would not necessarily have said fleeing had he meant it.
As Gothy pointed out. ;)

But he forgot my favourite!! :D

Fly, you fools!

;)

AND:

Originally posted by BlackCaptain
I said probly! It is probly the wrong word because I think he was going for the fact that everyones first intuition was that Balrog's have wings, making it intuitional, not logical.

So instead ask him what he meant?

I agree with Gothy here that there isn't a LOGICAL reason for what we believe about Balrogs, but maybe that was the actual word that Wulf meant. I'm not saying that it IS logical, but that his choice to say that it was logical to him is still his prerogative.

[Inderjit S]

Here are some interesting quotes from History of Home 7, LoTR Part 2: The Treason of Isengard

There is a pencilled note written on the manuscript against the description of the Balrog. Alter description of Balrog it seemed to be of mans shape but it's form could not be plainly discerned. It felt larger then it looked

Could the statment 'it felt larger then it looked' be a explanation of of why there were so many references to it's great size.

He also comments earlier on, and this made it on into the finished draft of LoTR thay it was 'man-high' which according to
Disaster of the Gladden Fields (U.T) was 6 foot 4, but there is a contradictory statement in Of Dwarves and Men (HoME 12) claiming that the average Numenorean height was 7 foot, though this could be a average of them close to their coming to M-E and the 6 foot 4 to their height in the end of the T.A

Bakc, to the text in hand, understandably, it is just a rough manuscript of LoTR but it may still give a good indication to what Balrogs may have looked like in the BoLT legendarium (primary the Fall of Gondolin) and the early Quenta Silmarilllions. Here is Tolkien's more detailed description from the rough manuscripts;

a figure strode out the fissure, no more then man-high yet terror seemed to go before it. They could see the furnace fire of it's eyes from afar; it's arms were very long it had a red [tounge]? Home 7; The Bridge

[Celebthôl]

Something came to me when reading a certain post:

" In that despair my enemy was my only hope, and I pursued him, clutching at his heel. Thus he brought me back at last to the secret ways of Khazad-Dum:"

This clearly means that the Balrog flew back up as there were clearly no stairs back up, else the nasties at the bottom would be all over K-D, it was also Gandalfs "only hope" to clutch his heel, if he did not clutch the heel the Balrog would have flown off and left him ;)

Prolly not the right place for this....i sence a **Merge** from Lanty or Ithy comin up :rolleyes: :D

[Lantarion]

No, it is the right place for it. And it is a fascinating observation..!

[BlackCaptain]

Well it is the endless STAIR... Mabey he was just really close behind him at his heels...:eek:

[Celebthôl]

But if there was an endless stair, how come the nasties at the bottom of Kazad-Dum hadnt climbed it and infested Moria? After all that time they surely would have done...

Welcome back BC :)

[BlackCaptain]

Who said there were 'nasties' at the bottom? And who said they didn't get out? Who said they even knew about the Secret passage?

Thanks!:D

[Celebthôl]

Gandalf did.

Did you ever hear them mentioned before Gandalf fell down there?

I didnt either ;)

Did anyone ever talk about them? the "nameless things" the "gnawed the earth"

Nope :)

[BlackCaptain]

Ohh... THOSE nameless things.... *acts suspicious*. Oh well... Mabey they liked it down there! Perhaps they were like Gollum and just hated sunlight and loved the depths of the earth!?

[Celebthôl]

Or perhaps there was no way for them to get up except to "FLY" :D ergo im right :D

[BlackCaptain]

No... If they lived that far down I'm sure they wouldn't be too sunlight friendly;)

[Celebthôl]

how much sunlight did you notice in Moria?!

[BlackCaptain]

Exactly! If they live that far down in the earth they wouldn't want to come near sun-light! ;)

[Celebthôl]

Hmmm, im not gonna fall into this, we all know there was no sunlight in Moria, therfore, they could not fear the mansions :rolleyes:

[Lantarion]

Hmm, although your observation is interesting Thol, AFAIK the Endless Stair ends on Zirak-zigil, and does not 'emerge' in Moria itself at all.. But I could be wrong.

[Celebthôl]

not that i distrust your thoughts, but where are the quotes? (sorry to turn into one of them) :rolleyes:

[BlackCaptain]

Well perhaps they never went up the Endless stair into the Mansions because the pH wasn't just right!?

Also I don't think that anything living that far down would just want to leave their cold wet enviornment! Remember there were Orcs, and the Balrog up in the mansions. They might not have wanted any confrontation with anything. I wouldn't.

[Celebthôl]

you dont think Balrogs had wings do you...

[BlackCaptain]

Nope. There's never anything that says they have wings. Why should I believe? The movie? A confusing use of metaphorical phrases? Nope... I don't think they had wings.

[Manveru]

I voted 'Yes'...
'Cause whether they really had them or not ;), though I think the book says they had:
The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall;
The Fellowship Of The Ring - The Bridge Of Khazad-dum
As an artist (I shouldn't say it--what artist am I;)) I think that Balrogs look better with their wings than without them...but this is only my thought...

[ely]

Ummm... I think they had some sort of wings, maybe they were made of shadow or fire; but if I were a Balrog, I would like to have wings :D

I don't know why Balrogs didn't fly, maybe they couldn't or didn't want to...

[Arvedui]

Of course Balrogs had wings!

Just take a look at this drawing of Glofindel fighting the Balrog in Gondolin:;)

[Jesse]

The Balrog had wings. It showed that in the film. I'd have to re-read the books to be positive.

[Flame of Anor]

Originally posted by ely
Ummm... I think they had some sort of wings, maybe they were made of shadow or fire; but if I were a Balrog, I would like to have wings :D

I don't know why Balrogs didn't fly, maybe they couldn't or didn't want to... Maybe it was just to make them look more ominous and frightening.

Wow, we are still talking about this...it has been a while since i have been in here. wow

[Feanorian]

Maybe it was just to make them look more ominous and frightening.

That makes no sense. Why have wings if they are just for decoration...humans don't have any decoration body parts...all of them serve a purpose.

[Celebthôl]

Chickens have them but dont fly....

[Devushka]

I think humans have some parts of our bodies that do not serve a purpose. i mean, i bet anyone can think of more, but some are: arm hair (it doesn't protect us at all anymore, like it was once useful), an extra finger (we could just have 4), and why do we have fat thighs??? and besides i am sure the balrog used its wings for something???

[Dwarf Lord]

I personally belive that balrogs had wings. In LOTR FOTR it says that there is a great shadow as of wings behind the balrog, but later says that the balrogs wings are streatched across the whole width of the second hall in the first deep of moria. That might explain why the balrog was unable to fly. It mearly did not have enough room, but then again it didn't fly when it fell into the unknown depths beneath the bridge. Too much to think about if you ask me.
Speaking of body parts that are of no use, you are asking biology questions. I didn't pay much attention to the teacher, but I do know that alot of creatures have body parts that have become useless as evolution has kicked in. One i remember is snake hips. A remnant of some former shape the snake had when thaey had legs. It is possible that the balrog had wings but could not use. just like an ostrige(spelling?)


DWARF LORD

[Gothmog]

There is one problem with the "Evolution" arguement about Balrogs having wings that no longer have their original function.

Balrog's Never Evolved!!!!

They did not "Evolve" from nor into anything. They were Ainur who clothed themselves in the "Raiment" of Arda appearing as creatures of Shadow and Flame. The shape they chose at that time was the one they kept. So if the Balrog had wings that did not work it could not be for any other reason than they never did so.

However, the theory of Wings making the Balrog look more fearsome works even better for the Shadow. This Shadow would have all the advantages of looking fearsome without causing the problems that physical wings would for a land-bound creature in moving around.

[Celebthôl]

Indeed...

But lets take the question to someone who would know for sure, the Lord of the Balrogs...Mr Gothmog sir, do you, or do you not posses wings?

[Gothmog]

I certainly do not have wings. :D

[Celebthôl]

There we go, as much as i dont like thy answer, i must accept it :D

[Gothmog]

Glad to have been of help. :)

[Dwarf Lord]

Aye, evolution did not occur, what you say is correct. But I merely relate it to the fact because it was obviously held up in some small hole in the ground before the miners unearthed it. Therefore maybe it's wings had laid useless in the deep dark. The whole time during the balrogs slumber or whatever the muscles dwindled rendeing the wings as a useless "mathom" perhaps. Anyway maybe when the balrog spread his wings in the second hall it was merely a big streach before he took on gandalf.:D

DWARF LORD

[Lafeinyis]

Hmm...I onestly didnt cech that part when i first red the bookes....I just asoumed that did when I sau the move aftor..cool! i'll hve to go and read it agen!

[Gothmog]

Dwarf Lord.

Atrophy is certainly a far more plausible an arguement than evolution to explain the lack of use of such wings. However, it still leaves the problem of the only flying creatures posessed by Morgoth were the up-graded dragons led by Ancalagon the Black. This problem does not exist with a Shadow that can be extended giving an apearence similar to wings.

Perhaps he should have done more of his Set-up exersises Before entering the hall. ;)

[Dwarf Lord]

Yes I see. After rereading The bridge of Khazad-dum. I now believe that when tolkien blantly says wings he is refering to the shadow behind the balrog that seemed to have taken shape as wings. But better yet why would thay have taken the shape of wings. And was the shadow as in the movie ash? Possibly not. Maybe it was just the great shadow that envelopes the balrog. You know they really screwed up a good part of the book in the movie. Friggen orc monkies climbing everywhere! and no fire-pit! And why didn't the orcs just attack instead of surrounding them? Stupid...STUPID...stupid movie!


DWARF LORD(off the subject?...just a little)

[Gothmog]

My view on the wing/shadow is that the Balrog is surounded by darkness that it can extend at will. As for your comments about the film. I totaly agree. :D

[Dwarf Lord]

Yeah, that sounds about right. I wonder why then it would not use it against enemies instead of making wing shapes? It would a very good tactic to surround it's enemies with the shadow, but I am starting to ramble again...I'll stop!


DWARF LORD

[BlackCaptain]

I believe thats what Durin's Bane was trying to accomplish whilst struggling agaisnt Gandalf the Grey. The Flame of Anor burned to brightly with Gandalf though... Or whatever that light was called

Shadow and fear is the most effective tool any servant of Melko has. Throw the enemy into despair, then have a bunch of Orcs chase after them and kill them while they're going crazy. Gandalf came through for the Fellowship though and sort of countered this Shadow attack, forcing the Balrog into physical combat.

that's my theory... please excuse it if it's a little on the insane side

[Niirewen]

I would have to say that I do not think Balrogs have wings. If they had wings, then why did Durin's Bane fall into the abyss with Gandalf when the bridge of Khazad-dum broke? If he had wings, couldn't he have just flown out? But that's just my crazy theory.. I could very well be wrong.

[Roilya]

if the balrog had wings, why didnt he fly up, when he was falling to the floor. with gandalf

[Khôr’nagan]

It tried to, but Gandalf didn't let it. Balrogs have wings. That's a fact. No point anyone debating it, because you'd be wrong if you said they didn't. They do have wings, and they always did. End of story.

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Khôr’nagan
It tried to, but Gandalf didn't let it. Balrogs have wings. That's a fact. No point anyone debating it, because you'd be wrong if you said they didn't. They do have wings, and they always did. End of story. As I have said before.

Please will you provide the proof to back up this statement. And I wish you luck in finding any. :)

[Khôr’nagan]

I'd like to see you try to spread wings and fly while being hacked and slashed and stabbed by a sword like Glamdring (The sword of the High King Turgon), not to mention the countless bolts of lightning. What's more, there's no room to spread its wings in that cramped hole. And why do I need to give what countless others already have? "The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its WINGS were spread from wall to wall." Need I say more? No, because it's proved.

[Lantarion]

Look, did you ever wonder why this thread has 19 pages worth of text?! Your so-called 'proof' is nothing new, in fact both of those points have been argued innumerable times. Please read through the entire thread before posting; and any new evidence is always welcome.
What you have expressed is your own opinion, and you believe that you have the proof to abck it up. If you believe that Valaraukar have wings, that's great. I agree with you (except I don't believe that they are material wings), and yet I have no conclusive evidence to back it up. Tolkien never was clear on the matter, which is precisely why this thread was made in the first place!
:rolleyes:

[Khôr’nagan]

I know this 'evidence' isn't new, but it's solid proof. And, I did complain, saying 'And why do I need to give what countless others already have?' That is, why do I need to post something that's been posted so much by others when it provides proof that they had wings. And, I didn't say they were necessarily material, just that it was my first inclination (though I wasn't clear about it). All I'm saying is, How can people debate whether or not they have wings when it says so in the book? More precisely this thread should be named 'Material wings or no?', because it says that they have wings in the book. So, that's that. end of story. They had wings, and they always did. Go on debating whether or not they were material or not, but stop saying they didn't have them (talking to everyone in general who claim Balrogs have no wings). Because they DID have them. Denying it is futile. So that's what I've got to say, and I've said it. They had wings. It is a definite, undeniable fact. Whether they were material wings or not, that's anybody's guess.

[Arvedui]

I don't know if you have read the whole thread, but in case you haven't, there is a number of TTF-members that don't agree with your view. Which is why this thread takes up some 25 pages, and not 19 as Lanty stated;)

If you have read the thread, you know my view on the matter, if not...:)

[Khôr’nagan]

Well, fortunitely for me, I am not nearly arrogant so as to say that 'I'm right, you're wrong, so nyeaah!' Because then I would be wrong. I simply do not understand how it can be denied. How can you deny that passage from the book? I'm honestly asking, what is the reason that you deny this apparent fact? (And by the way, people, I do not think it was a metaphor or a simile or anything like that. He said 'it's wings', and he meant that it had wings, whether they were of shadow or not.)

And, finally, I apologize for my immediate reaction of saying that I was definitely right, because nothing's definite, and there's no way to be 100% sure of anything. I took too much of a defensive position on what I believe is fact, and I shouldn't have. I am easily carried away.

[Arvedui]

Tolkien uses the word "wings" in a number of circumstances, which has been proven before in this very thread. May I suggest that you read the following:
by Cian (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=167204#post167204)
also by Cian (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=167165#post167165)
as is this one (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=122719#post122719)
and finally this (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=118216#post118216)

I believe it all comes down to ones personal belief.

[Khôr’nagan]

Well, I have just finished reading (most of) the prior posts, and my position stands firm. I mean no offence to anyone, but it seems to me that everyone's nitpicking about tiny details. I said the wings might be shadow, like I now know so many others do, to, but I strongly believe, much like Lantarion (though I hadn't read the prior posts yet) that the balrog had wings, but it was too cramped in there to use them. What's more, after falling into the pit, I quote myself, "I'd like to see you try to spread wings and fly while being hacked and slashed and stabbed by a sword like Glamdring (The sword of the High King Turgon), not to mention the countless bolts of lightning."

Finally, I pity those of you who cannot imagine balrogs looking cool while flying, because, (believe me), it is comletely a matter of your own imagination, and Balrogs definitely can look cool when flying. I find myself comparing it to the Hulk (in the 2003 movie, not the crumby TV show) jumping up into the air, and while in the air flapping its ings (though only one full flap every 3 seconds; it's wings are HUGE). And, as for the muscular issue, they're magical. Every ounce of muscle it has is at least 50 times stronger than the same weight of human muscles, because it's just that good.

[Gothmog]

Fine. You have now shown that the shadow surrounding the Balrog can give it the apearance of wings, something that was not in dispute. Now you have only two things left to prove from your posts.

1. That they have Always had wings.

2. That they can fly.

The first is completely wrong as Tolkien only once mentioned "Wings" of any description in all the times he mentioned Balrogs.

As for the second Balrogs have always been used by Tolkien as Ground Troops.

[Khôr’nagan]

Hey, now. Would you just listen for a minute? I have this to say:

Our opinions differ, quite obviously, about whether ot not Balrogs had wings. There is insufficient evidence to prove either opinion right or wrong. I cannot prove that they did, but you cannot prove that they didn't. We are at a point where it is useless to argue, debate, discuss, or any other conversation, that is based upon proving our points. In the second paragragh of my last post, I described how I would imagine a Balrog flying. Whether it could or couldn't doesn't matter, as it was theoretical. I therefore come to the conclusion that this thread be ceased. As far as I can tell, this thread only creates dissention among TTF members. If newbs who haven't seen it yet want to look at the evidence, they can just go to the archive. This is a source of anger and aggravation, and quite obviously is not productive. Let it be, and move on to things wiith sufficient evidence to be proved. I have spoken.

[Gothmog]

I am quite willing to listen to your thoughts and opinions.

I have no problem with your opinion about this subject but when you enter a discussion of this type with a catagorical statement in the way you did here you must be ready to defend your position. You are not the first to have had this very problem on this thread.

This thread causes in fact very little dissention among the members of TTF. It does from time to time however, allow for some very lively debate and therefore is of some use both for this reason and to allow new members to give their opinions on this matter without having to start a new thread for it.

I also find it interesting that you find this thread to be a source of "of anger and aggravation" Since as far as I can recall no other member has made this complaint.

[Khôr’nagan]

I said that because it both angered and agrivated me, and that can lead to dissention. I become quickly angered and agrivated when (from my perspective) people ignore or disagree with solid, undeniable fact. What's more, they then proceed to act all smart and knowledgeable (whether they are or not), while to me it seems like stupidity and arrogance, since they could not be smart if they could even think about denying factual information. Most of this is (most likely) unwarranted and has no place here. One particular statement that angered me was you (Gothmog) answering someone's question of whether or not you have wings, and you saying 'I most certainly do not.' This angered me because you know no better than anyone else, and (in my opinion; once again probably unfounded) you have absolutely no right to say that, whether your screen-name is Gothmog or not. Thus (to me) it makes you seem like an editted who wouldn't know a Balrog if it walked up and kicked him in the face (which you most certainly are not). So as you can see, this has quite angered me, whether it should have or not. I will, therefore, cease to come to this thread (to prevent the dissention I would most certainly cause). I do this since (as you say) nobody else feels similarly, and I find it unfortunate that I feel thus. I appologize for anything I may have said that is offensive, as it is (most likely) unfounded and inappropriately placed. I have ADD and am extremely prone to anger.

[Gothmog]

Khôr’nagan

I do not know if you will look in on this thread after your last post. However, I will give an answer.

One particular statement that angered me was you (Gothmog) answering someone's question of whether or not you have wings, and you saying 'I most certainly do not.' The statement you refer to was given in answer to a rather 'Tonuge-in-Cheek' question directed to me. As I was personaly asked this question I had every right to answer as I saw fit. The reason for the answer I gave was Two-fold.

(a) My view on this question is that Balrogs do not have wings. That is to say that while the extention of the shadow can give the illusion of wings it is still only shadow.
(b) On a personal note, I as a "Bog-Standard" human do not have Wings.

Therefore I stated as you quoted "I certainly do not." What you failed to notice however was that at the end of the statement was a "Big Grin" Smiley which is used to denote a Joke. And in the case of Celebthôl, his answer also ended with a Big Grin showing that despite his answer he did not accept what I said and knew it to be a joke.

If such jokes anger you then it is likely that you will find many of the threads on this site very annoying.

On the subject of "solid, undeniable fact", this is something that you should be very wary of. Such things are the stones with which to fence in and confine the intelect.

[Lantarion]

Well spoken Gothmog. And Khôr'nagan, I urge you to keep your temper in check if you do not wish to be given more Warning Points. This can be discussed perfectly civilly.

Now, just to make my position clear, I will tell you my opinion of the matter and offer what scant evidence there is to back it up.
Gothmog took the words right out of my mouth: I believe that Valaraukar, as Maiar and largely incorporal beings composed of fire and 'shadow', do not possess material, functioning wings of any kind.
FotR, 'The Bridge of Khazad-dûm
The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.
FotR, 'The Bridge of Khazad-dûm
The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It steped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall...
So here we see the two famous quotes, the very base of this discussion. The former equates the darkness and shadow of the Balrog to 'vast wings' with a simile. The latter quote, which you deem to be irrefutable evidence, I argue only uses the term 'wings' because it is the shape that the Valarauko's dark essence has taken at that time, and as a literary tool Tolkien gives us an image of a textbook 'demon' or 'devil': a dark, fiery creature with horns and batlike wings.
The Silmarillion, 'Valaquenta'
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 Balrogs, demons of teror.
This passage shows that the Valaraukar were spirits, not actual corporeal creatures (like the movie implies); the Istari, though Maiar, had the ability to take on a corporeal form as a tool or gift given specifically by the Valar. No such gift is ever said to have been given to Valaraukar, at least not in the published Silmarillion.

Here is the evidence, both sufficient to justify my opinion and all that I feel inclined to look for at this time (though the few other quotes involving Valaraukar have probably been given on this thread elsewhere).
Now that I have given several points and quotes to back up my view, you are free to contest it; provided that you have evidence to justify your claims. :)

[Khôr’nagan]

Wo, sorry :( ... I don't know why I said that. :o I guess I was in a bad mood. Oh, well... Can't say I don't deserve it, as I wouldn't like it if it was someone else saying it to me. I guess it didn't sound so bad at the time, but looking back...

('I most certainly do not') It didn't really anger me, just annoyed (though I hadn't realized it was a joke; different people use things in different ways, and it can be difficult to decipher the meanings)... I was in a bad mood (not an excuse, I know) and pointing out little things. I shouldn't have said those things, and I'm sorry. Although, I was not sarcastic when saying "which you most certainly are not", though it hardly makes it less offending. And I also note (since it is in my nature to defend myself), that I said "from my perspective", and this is because the evidence stated provides (for me insufficient evidence to the contrary of Balrogs having wings. If you came up with a line where Tolkien wrot "Balrogs have no wings", or something of the like, I would then apologize, admit my failure and your success, and congragulate you on your dpeth of perception. I say this honestly, because that's what I do when someone proves me wrong. But, as of yet, there is no solid proof for the contrary (and the way I interperet the lines makes me belive that they is non-metaphorical and fact). Yet in science (my favorite subject), facts are constantly proven and unproven, and I am willing to admit defeat (if/when it comes). I am always told (by teachers, classmates, etc.) that I am bright, a 'Genious', 'deep', appreciative, and overall intellectually advanced (for my grade; I have not stayed back). So, one thing I would like to ask (though I do believe I'm treading on thin ice) that you not mention anything "fencing in my intellect". I do not keep things that are proven incorrect (that are not based upon onpinion, like whether or not one likes McDonalds) to remain incorrect. When proved wrong, I admit it. I am proud (somewhat), but I also have a broad perception, and I can admit when I'm wrong. I take such comments referring to my intellect quite personally (although I know you were, in no way, meaning to be insulting).

Of course, none of this makes what I said any better. I apologize to everyone, but especially Gothmog. Won't do it again. This'll help me learn my lesson. I'm not a jerk (usually), and I hope I can right this wrong. Perhaps "serving my time" will be enough, but doubtful...

[Gothmog]

Khôr’nagan
I thank you for your apology, Freely given Freely accepted.

As for my comment about the “stones with which to fence in and confine the intelect” it was to point out that any person can blind themselves by these things. Undeniable facts are only proven false by someone Denying them. This is a mistake that over a number of years I have often made myself. Many things that when I was in school were “Undeniable” and accepted by me as such have since been either disproved or called into serious question by others.

I gave the comment not to insult (as you have already noted) but in hope.

There are no “Undeniable Facts” All such are simply opinions and interpretations that have been accepted by the majority. Do not fall into this trap but let your intellect soar where it will.

[Khôr’nagan]

All I mean is, to me, 1+n=2. I think n=1, and you think n=2. Therefore, while you think 1+n=3, I do not. If n is proven to be 2, then I will accept it. But, until then, the evidence given tells (by my interpretation) that n=1. It is a fact that 1+1=2, and that is undeniable. But, should it be proven that n=2, then I will accept that n wasn't 1 in the first place, but always was 2. It is a fact that 1+1=2, and it is a fact that 1+2=3. Which one applies, however, is what is in question. Thus, is the answer 2 or 3? Do Balrogs have wings or not? I admit I know not for certain. Perhaps, none shall ever know...

[Lantarion]

Originally posted by Khôr'nagan
All I mean is, to me, 1+n=2. I think n=1, and you think n=2. Therefore, while you think 1+n=3, I do not. If n is proven to be 2, then I will accept it. But, until then, the evidence given tells (by my interpretation) that n=1. It is a fact that 1+1=2, and that is undeniable. But, should it be proven that n=2, then I will accept that n wasn't 1 in the first place, but always was 2. It is a fact that 1+1=2, and it is a fact that 1+2=3.
Woah! Now there's a tongue-twister. :D
But thank you for apologizing; your WPs will be gone after a while, don't worry. :)

[Khôr’nagan]

It's just simple algebra. The variable, n, is either 1 or 2. It is not known for certain, however, and thus it is represtented by the variable, because it can change.

Oh, and by the way... Gothmog, you're 45?! Oh my gosh! I'm out of my league... You're three times my age! Jesus crackers, man! I thought you were a teenager! MAN!

[Wonko The Sane]

Actually the logic and the algebra both got a bit muddled, basically what you started out saying was that you both thought n was a different integer in the same equation, unfortunately that suggests that you are definitely right and your oponent definitely wrong, however your analogy morphed into a set of two different equations, where you were both right, and the logic with which you tried to explain things broke down somewhere around there.

Let's try to steer away from complicated analogies...they give me a headache. Not because I can't understand them, but because they could be stated so much more simply. For example: You think Balrogs have wings. I think they don't. If there's ever proof found that they do, I'll concede and accept it. Unfortunately, there is no proof, so we're both going to go on thinking our own thoughts.

It's so much simpler.

[Lantarion]

Originally posted by Khôr'nagan
It's just simple algebra.
Yes I realize that, obviously; the way you rpesented it was just too muddled to impress me.
You shouldn't assume that poeple know less than you, y'know. ;)

[Gothmog]

Khôr’nagan

As for my age it means little on here as there are many youngsters like yourself who are as good or better than me in many ways (although your reaction was interesting). In about 30 years you will see that all age does is allow you time to make more mistakes from which you can (hopefully) learn.

On a side note. The Equations you use are interesting. However, your claim as to the result of 1+1 depends on an assumption of Base. 1+1 (base 10) does indeed equal 2. However, 1+1 (base 2) equals 10. And 1+2 (base 3) also equals 10.

So in this question I would say that you are using Base “Wings” while I am using Base “Shadow”. Therefore it would seem that we are Both Correct.

[Khôr’nagan]

I have absolutely no idea what you just said. :confused: I'm only in 10th grade, and I have know idea what 'base' means (in that context). However, I do think I understand what you mean, in that what our interpretations give, we are both correct, and there is no incorrect answer/interperetation, (or something of the like).

But anyway, what I was meaning about the age difference is that you've (probably) been a Tolkien fan for something like 30 years, (twice my age), while I only started with Tolkien a little over a year ago. Heck, you could have even met Tolkien while I was still years from even being born. That gives you a big advantage (at least over me), regardless that I have read 9 Tolkien books. Also, one thing that made me feel more upset by your position on Balrogs was that I thought you were just a teen-ager. You being 45 changes everything, as you have a right (more than me) to be saying things about them, as I am still in my youth and not yet reached my prime, at which time I would be more mature and intelligent. You have (possibly) had as many years to think about Tolkien's world as I've had months.

I am, however, the most stubborn person I know, and I don't give up very easily. I was simply surprised that you were so old (not that 45 is old, only that you're older than I thought). Heck, my dad's 44 and my mom's 52, (or something like that). And, let's just say that I've not won many battles against them (though I have won some; being stubborn has its advantages).

[Thuringwethil]

My original impression about the subject was that yes, valaraukar do have physical (bat-like) wings. (And I blame Bakshi.) However, as time went by and I read more of Tolkien's texts, and re-read them, I started to feel otherwise. Now my opinion is reverse: valaraukar do not have wings, and they also cannot fly. This comes from the overall impression I had from all texts I have read. Winglessness just fits into (my) picture much better, whereas wingedness leads to too many weird and made-up explanations. My "evidence" is pretty much the same quoted by others already (although I got some new info too, thanks to you :)).

More pondering about balrog physiology, just opinions and hypothesis etc:

They are around 15 feet tall, man-shaped (no wings or tail) and sort of corporeal (you can hit 'em but it's not blood that's spilling; they can be killed with extremely strong, preferably repeated impacts, such as free fall into sharp stones). They appear to change their size a bit, but this can be only optic trick or illusion (no opinion yet). They have two "other bodies" along with the physical one: one of fire and other of shadow (unlight). These "bodies" balrog can shape at will, except fire can be extinguished for a short time (with a big effort). Unlight can be shaped to a cloak or wings, or just fill whole room with it and slaughter everyone in the dark... :eek: Shadow and flame are balrog's main weapons, and (enormous) physical strength comes to picture later. Weapons used by them are of steel and other normal materials (but not normal size), made by their slaves (orcs etc). Balrog can make a sword burst in flames without melting it. Their skill with whip (which I personally picture to be made of steel chain) is nightmarishly high, but other weapons tend to be "secondary". Gothmog's skill with an axe sounds like an exception, and Durin's Bane seems to suck as a swordfighter (but with a whip... uh-oh).

Just something that I've been wondering/pondering... RPG byproduct if you like. :D

[Lantarion]

Sounds excellent, by-product or no. ;)
But on the other hand, before saying whether Valaraukar do or do not have wings we must present the nature of 'wings' themselves. Are they material wings, or just wings in general? Because whereas I do not think they have corporeal, material wings, I do believe that they have wings composed of the ethereal substance Tolkien describes as 'shadow'. :)

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Khôr’nagan
I have absolutely no idea what you just said. :confused: I'm only in 10th grade, and I have know idea what 'base' means (in that context). However, I do think I understand what you mean, in that what our interpretations give, we are both correct, and there is no incorrect answer/interperetation, (or something of the like).


I am, however, the most stubborn person I know, and I don't give up very easily. I was simply surprised that you were so old (not that 45 is old, only that you're older than I thought). Heck, my dad's 44 and my mom's 52, (or something like that). And, let's just say that I've not won many battles against them (though I have won some; being stubborn has its advantages).
As for the first paragraph, don't worry about knowing exactly what I said. You did indeed understand the meaning exactly and gave a very accurate statement of the meaning. :)

I aggree totaly about being stubborn. As you will no doubt find out on other threads I too am a very stubborn person. :)

As for your other comments, it is true that I have had more time to think about Tolkien's work but I have learned more about this since I have been on this site than I did in the years before joining. So You will find that reading the views of the many lore-masters on here and discussing the ideas that are posted will improve your enjoyment of and knowledge about the works of Tolkien very quickly.

[Wonko The Sane]

Lantarion, I haven't been following this thread as closely as I should, I'll admit. I haven't read every thread.
But your idea of "wings" of shadow is actually a very very interesting point. While there is still room for debate, Tolkien's phrasing seems to suggest the Valaraukar did NOT have corporeal wings, but wings made of "shadow" would actually fit very well into the descriptions we DO have.

[Lantarion]

Yes, that is what I believe. Of course it is natural to assume that when Tolkien uses the term 'wings' he isn't talking about the shadow-essense wings but about actual, even 'batlike' wings; however, I believe that this assumption is rash. It did take me a while to come tothis conclusion though, and it remains my opinion, nothing more. :)

[Ancalagon]

I would tend to agree with the Gothmog camp on this question. One thing that always intrigued me about this question is why Balrogs never seemed to fly. I guess it is a logical consideration, especially when one thinks of all the evil creatures that issued forth from Angband. Only once however do we know that any 'winged-creature' comes forth to battle, no other instance do we see or hear of flight.
Thus it was that he drew far ahead of the van of his host; and seeing this the servants of Morgoth turned to bay, and there issued from Angband Balrogs to aid them. There upon the confines of Dor Daedeloth, the land of Morgoth, Fëanor was surrounded, with few friends about him. Long he fought on, and undismayed, though he was wrapped in fire and wounded with many wounds; but at the last he was smitten to the ground by Gothmog, Lord of Balrogs, whom Ecthelion after slew in Gondolin. The Silmarillion
Here we can see that those Balrogs who fought against Fëanor, did so upon the 'confines of Dor Daedeloth' interestingly enough, there is no mention of flight, nor that they raised themselves up to bear down upon the host nor did they take flight from the gates of Angband. However, were Balrogs given to flight, why then did they not also issue forth against the Valar?Then, seeing that his hosts were overthrown and his power dispersed, 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. Now of course this proves nothing except that Balrogs are not described in the same manner as Ancalagon and his winged-fleet. However, neither does suggest that Balrogs are bereft of the ability. However, there is other mention made of Balrogs, for example when the come to the aid of Morgoth and drive Ungoliant away. Far beneath the rained halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their Lord; and now swiftly they arose, and passing over Hithlum they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire. As you can see, it says here, 'now swiftly they arose' does this mean they arose from the depths of Angband, which I personally believe it does, or could it mean they arose in flight and passed over Hithlum? I do not consider Balrogs had the ability to fly, however they had pace, speed which is referred to in the Silmarillion; Then suddenly Morgoth sent forth great rivers of flame that ran down swifter than Balrogs from Thangorodrim This to me suggests strongly that Balrogs are earth-bound, which is important when attempting to question why they might actually have wings. Why have wings if you cannot fly? Why choose your own bodily form with wings if you had no plans to use them for flight? Remember, Balrogs, like all Maia who heakened to Morgoth clothed themselves in fearsome shapes and forms, such as suited the evil within them. their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness The Silmarillion there is something in this that must be considered. The interesting point to me is that they are 'cloaked in shadow' something which has rather a theme to it if one considers Morgoth and the evil around him. Reading through the thread, Gothmog, Thuringwethil and others have reminded me of my own contemplations long past on the matter. Shadow is the key, for shadow it seems is the cloak in which all evils desires to surround itself. yet some things were hidden even from the eyes of Manwë and the servants of Manwë, for where Melkor sat in his dark thought impenetrable shadows lay. I considered this quote, not because Melkor sat underground, ordinarilly that would not deflect the gaze of Manwë, but the very fact he has cloaked himself in impenetrable shadow. Ungoliant also, weaved herself in shadow, for she alone consumed the light and from it would spout forth darkness;There she sucked up all light that she could find, and spun it forth again in dark nets of strangling gloom, until no light more could come to her abode; and she was famished. Yet, shadow is not exlusive to Melkor and his servants, rather a tool of the maiar who used shadow to serve thier own purpose, but it is a tool used to strike fear into the hearts of those who fall foul of it. Consider the Girdle of Melian, an unseen wall of shadow and bewilderment, or even the shadows that surround the Blessed Realm. Morgoth again who hid himself and his host from Tilion, to whom he had sent 'spirits of shadow' against to no avail. So, what does this have to do with Balrogs? Do they not also cloak themselves in shadow, do they not seem to consume light in similar fashion? The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. The Fellowship of the Ring There is a trend among the greatest of Morgoths creatures to consume light, to displace it somehow and to appear darker than depths of night. Wings it would seem are simply an illusion of this ability, the ability itself being able to obscure all light, to become a dreadful silhouette and intangible spectre who decieves the eye through fear and a natural manipulation of ones vision. A Balrog defiles the light, thus perplexing the mind and should it appear to have wings as it unfolds in the darkness, all the better. Wings or no? I think not.

[Khôr’nagan]

Impressive. Very, very impressive. Quite a strong argument. However, the fact of the matter is that none of that is truly proof, regardless of how it may appear (to those of certain interpretations). I, however, take that evidence and realize something, something that I've never even dreamed of before.

Tolkien wasn't sure whether or not Balrogs should have wings.

Think about it! Throughout everything he ever wrote, Tolkien never once said directly that Balrogs could fly. He never said directly that Balrogs couldn't fly. He left their descriptions open-ended, saying things that they did in a way that would make perfect sense whether or not Balrogs had wings, so that when he decided, he could just go back and add a few words (or not). However, I do not think that Tolkien ever decided. I think that Tolkien died before making up his mind. Even the passage, "It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its WINGS were spread from wall to wall." does not say specifically whether or not they had wings. In that form, he could either leave it (saying they didn't have wings) or throw a few words into it that would solidify that the wings were real (like "And the balrog tried to fly, to escape from that mighty sword, but could not."). Although, I would like to add that just because they were left alone doesn't mean that he decided against them. Because, he never went back and said anything to disprove the wings.

Therefore, I believe that we were all wrong. He never decided, so they neither did nor did not have wings (including shadow-wings).

NOTE: This was all stated as though it were fact, but that was just because it was easier to write it that way. It is only a theory, though (I think) a good one.

[Wonko The Sane]

While Christopher Tolkien does claim in the preface to the newer editions of The Silmarillion that his father was constantly revising and tweaking the text of The Sil (even while the main focuses and themes remained the same), it may be hasty to assume Tolkien didn't have a clear idea of whether or not Balrog's had wings.
I personally assume that when he pictured the Balrogs in his mind he had a fairly good picture of what he thought they should look like, and for whatever reason he left it ambiguous in his writings. Perhaps that comes from the fact that The Silmarillion was not, as we usually see it, a finished and complete version of the text, but one of many "drafts" and that it was published posthumously. Or perhaps it comes from an intentional ambiguity. Tolkien does very little in the way of definite, and concrete character description, focusing instead on their personality and "essence." Perhaps his intention was to allow us to paint a picture of the characters in our own mind.
Or, perhaps, the ambiguity comes from a feeling in Tolkien's own mind that whatever his vision of the Balrogs was that it came across clearly to his readers. Often when one is writing something those things that are unclear to others, appear crystal clear to the writer, because he knows what his intention and vision is.

The issue stilll remains, however, whether or not Balrogs had wings, and whether or not they could fly. Regardless of that main issue, a question to one of Ancalagon's points: "Why have wings if you cannot fly? Why choose your own bodily form with wings if you had no plans to use them for flight?"
The answer to that could be just this: To have, as the description suggests, wings that spread from wall to wall, or even shadow in the form of wings that does the same, gives one a more imposing figure. It is even more intimidating because of the sheer vastness of it. A Balrog might choose wings that do not give them flight simply in order to frighten their opponents with the enormous shadowy presence extending from their bodies.

[Gothmog]

Tolkien had made his decision about how the Balrog looked. You can find proof of this in HoME 7: The Treason of Isengard: The Mines Of Moria (ii).

The original draft of the chapter ends here, and does not recount the coming of the Company into Dimrill Dale. There is a pencilled note written on the manuscript against the description of the Balrog: 'Alter description of Balrog. It seemed to be of man's shape, but its form could not be plainly discerned. It felt larger than it looked.' After the words 'Through the air it sprang over the fiery fissure' my father added: 'and a great shadow seemed to black out the light.' And at the end of the text - before he had finished it, for the concluding passage is written around the words - he wrote: 'No - Gandalf breaks the bridge and Balrog falls - but lassoos him.' Tolkien had decided that No One was to have a clear view of the Balrog. It is up to each person to make up their own mind as to what can be seen.

[Flame of Udûn]

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
Regardless of that main issue, a question to one of Ancalagon's points: "Why have wings if you cannot fly? Why choose your own bodily form with wings if you had no plans to use them for flight?"
The answer to that could be just this: To have, as the description suggests, wings that spread from wall to wall, or even shadow in the form of wings that does the same, gives one a more imposing figure. It is even more intimidating because of the sheer vastness of it. A Balrog might choose wings that do not give them flight simply in order to frighten their opponents with the enormous shadowy presence extending from their bodies.
I quote from the EoA:
For the 'flightless Balrog' idea to hold, we'd have to assume that the Balrog possessed a huge pair of unusable wings as the result of a deliberate decision. It hardly seems plausible that the Balrog, having decided on the form of a monstrous winged fire-demon, and given the choice of being able to fly or not, would choose 'not'.

[Wonko The Sane]

EoA, Encyclopedia of Arda?

I don't take them as a definitive source since they are liable to as much conjecture as we are.

Personally, it seems to me that if a Balrog wanted to "Feel bigger than he was" to paraphrase Tolkien, that wings made of shadow would help to accomplish this.

They didn't NEED to fly, per se, because they were swift enough as it was...but the shadow would help to increase their imposing stature.

[Ancalagon]

I agree with Wonks, The Encyclopedia of Arda, which is an excellent resource is no nearer the answers to these questions than any other who has pondered them. In truth, you are more likely to find the closest answers within the forum itself, or among the many essays submitted by 'everyday' Tolkien enthusiasts to the Wiki (http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/wiki.cgi?FolderFolders) where everyone can submit their own thoughts and research. An excellent, ever increasing resource:)

[Wonko The Sane]

*Still doesn't quite understand what a Wiki is*

The EoA comment reminds me of something my brother said on another site...It was actually quite a good post. I got banned from the site, but I'm going to ask him to copy and paste it and send it to me so that I can put it up here...

[Flame of Udûn]

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
EoA, Encyclopedia of Arda?

I don't take them as a definitive source since they are liable to as much conjecture as we are.

Personally, it seems to me that if a Balrog wanted to "Feel bigger than he was" to paraphrase Tolkien, that wings made of shadow would help to accomplish this.

They didn't NEED to fly, per se, because they were swift enough as it was...but the shadow would help to increase their imposing stature.
I wasn't quoting the EoA as a source of proof, but only as a statement of the most common objection to that argument, and, in my opinion, quite a reasonable one. Why choose to have wings that were useless, when operational wings would have been no more effort? As for being swift enough without wings, there are many instances when being faster would be desirable, let alone the obvious advantage of being able to fly, as a means of preventing some gravity-related mishaps, which have been brought up previously in this thread.
Originally posted by Ancalagon
I agree with Wonks, The Encyclopedia of Arda, which is an excellent resource is no nearer the answers to these questions than any other who has pondered them. In truth, you are more likely to find the closest answers within the forum itself, or among the many essays submitted by 'everyday' Tolkien enthusiasts to the Wiki (http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/wiki.cgi?FolderFolders) where everyone can submit their own thoughts and research. An excellent, ever increasing resource:)
Most of the EoA's conjectures are taken from these very sources. They don't just make it up themselves.

[Wonko The Sane]

As to the EoA's sources, they may take things from the Wiki, but if as Anc suggested the Wiki has more than one different opinion or essay from more than one person, the EoA is obviously being very selective in their choosing of which essays to bring to the table.
That alone is bias enough as those opinions chosen were chosen to express a personal opinion.

[Kahmûl]

Balrogs had wings but they couldn't use them or the one in Moria wouldn't have fell.

[Ancalagon]

Originally posted by Kahmul
Balrogs had wings but they couldn't use them or the one in Moria wouldn't have fell.
I appreciate the concept, but Kahmul, you will need to produce a statement of evidence to support your theory;)

[Khôr’nagan]

Originally posted by Wonko The Sane
...it may be hasty to assume Tolkien didn't have a clear idea of whether or not Balrog's had wings.
I personally assume that when he pictured the Balrogs in his mind he had a fairly good picture of what he thought they should look like, and for whatever reason he left it ambiguous in his writings...

Hasty? I consider myself the most hasty of anyone I know. So what's your point? I am an energetic 15 year old who is unbelieveably enthusiastic about Tolkien. And yet, even so I have I strong sense of perception, and it is not easily clouded. On the contrary, my perception of things is quite clear, and almost unaffected by my love and admiration for Tolkien.

I find that many people's perceptions are clouded in the face of extreme fanaticism regarding people. They think that person is better than they really are, and that the person is always sure of him/herself. The following is the two point of views pertinent to my idea, and thus this post:

PERSON 1: I believe Tolkien was very unsure of himself. The fact is, everyone in his position (writer) are unsure of themselves. Why wouldn't they be? They are under extreme pressure to write something great, and are under the scruteny of millions... If not a Billion... People throughout the Earth. I know that I would be unsure of myself.

PERSON 2: How can one think that a writer is sure of him/herself? Well, that's simple... They just do. And why not? Surely someone with such genius as J.R.R. Tolkien would be sure of themself. Otherwise, how could they possibly tolerate the stress and pressure of all that scruteny? They couldn't, and so they would not do anything they weren't sure of.

So, who are these people? PERSON 1 is me, and PERSON 2 is also me. However, PERSON 1 is me from a neutral perspective, and PERSON 2 is me from a biased perspective. The fact is, everyone is either unsure of themselves or so arrogant that they think they have no reason to be. Tolkien, however, was not arrogant, and was thus unsure of himself. Isn't it enough that he constantly re-wrote each and every thing he did? Isn't it enough that he kept everything ambiguious? Isn't it enough that there are half a dozen versions of all his writings? Of course he was unsure of himself. In fact, he was more unsure of himself than most are. And why is that? Because Tolkien wasn't a writer, he was a linguist. He wrote everything about ME as a way to develop the Elvish Language through the ddevelopment of its mythology. Therefore, he was going where few linguists (or even writers) had gone before: Building an entire World from the bottom up, an entire history from beginning to ending.

He was, therefore, a very skilled writer, or he wouldn't have stood a chance. But he didn't grow up in a writer's childhood, he grew up as a linguist. That's why LotR is so good; because he wasn't a traditional writer.

Taking in all this, the fact is, Tolkien was a pioneer, a person venturing into new and mysterious lands, first ever to do so and maybe the last. So he was under a new and greater kind of pressure than anyone else, even though he had even less of an ability to cope with it.

So let's get down to the matter at hand; Balrogs and there wings (or lack there of, perhaps.) Tolkien, throughout his writings, constantly revised things of all sorts, everything from appearance to concept. He was always rethinking things, always becoming unsure of himself, never quite knowing what he wanted. He went on and on, writing the entirety of ME and LotR. But, throughout all this, he was never able to decide countless things. Among these things were whether or not Balrogs had wings. He had never had a strong thought as to whether or not they should, and had never made up his mind. But then *Chokes; falls over* Tolkien dies, and had yet to make up his mind. Thus, his work of masterpiece was left totally and utterly unfinished. But, even so, his son went on to publish them, and they were yet to have been given the determination of whether or not Balrogs had wings. And so, even today, Tolkien is rolling in his grave as he thinks of how much argument has been given as to whether or not Balrogs had wings.

You have just witnessed my chain of thoughts as they had occured. Now, as to your post...

I personally assume that when he pictured the Balrogs in his mind he had a fairly good picture of what he thought they should look like...

... I have this to say: (In my opinion), That is not so. I sincerely doubt that he could have possibly left it so ambiguious and not have been unsure. Thet just makes no sense. Tolkien was unsure about almost everything, and was thus very ambiguious about so many things. I believe it to be misguided to think that he was sure of himself but liked being ambiguious in his writing, because that's just foolishness. It is very hard to be sure of Tolkien's mind, but that is most certainly the most unlikely ones I can think of. However, it is easy to become misguided, and thus easy to see it that way. And yet that way makes absolutely no sense, when you (or at least I) really think about it. Hasn't Chris said on countless occasions that his father was unsure of himself? Tolkien always mumbled when he gave lectures. Tolkien had not wanted to read aloud one of his stories because he was unsure of himself. Tolkien had almost rejected Adunaic as having been kept by Numenoreans when they went to Numenor. Tolkien constantly changed the base concepts behind names, events, etc., and that led to significant changes in the timeline. Tolkien was always unsure of himself, and of his work. He died unsure of himself. You can't say that isn't at least a little likely. I have written this post so extensively because you seem to have all ignored the last one, and wrote it off as 'hasty.' Well, I think your denial was very 'hasty,' and that you should slow down and think about it.

[Gothmog]

An excellent post Khor’nagan.

Since Tolkien as you have so eloquently pointed out was not happy with any description of the Balrog that he could come up with he made a decision that put an end to the problem. In my last post I included a quote that showed that JRRT had decided to Not give a clear view of the Balrog in Moria.

Doing this removed the need for him to worry if he should include wings in the description. I still doubt that Tolkien thought of the Balrog as having wings. In his early writing on the Fall of Gondolin he had Glorfindel fighting with a Balrog high up a mountain. I find this quote from “The Fall of Gondolin” in The Book of Lost Tales II very suggestive that he thought of them with out wings.
Already the half had passed the perilous way and the falls of Thorn Sir, when that Balrog that was with the rearward foe leapt with great might on certain lofty rocks that stood into the path on the left side upon the lip of the chasm, and thence with a leap of fury he was past Glorfindel's men and among the women and the sick in front, lashing with his whip of flame. Jumping from rock to rock just to get past those on the path seems to be a strange move for a creature possessed of wings. Even though I agree with you about JRRT’s constant revision of the stories and descriptions I am of the opinion that in the case of the Balrog he left the description vague not to allow for later changes but as a means whereby it could be made more terrifying because it could not be clearly seen.

[Khôr’nagan]

Interesting.....

Well, to tell the truth... I'm beginning to doubt if Balrogs had wings. The evidence I myself am stirring up is proof to the contrary of them having wings. However, in the face of this great doubt, one thing holds true to the last...

I think Balarogs are so much cooler with wings. I can't imagine the Balrog in LotR without them, because they are just so fricken cool with them.

So, that's about it. I think they are cooler with them, but I'm not sure if they have them anymore... An interesting situation...

[Thuringwethil]

Peace lasted too long? Sounds like a job for Lady of the Secret Shadow.. ;)

by Khôr’nagan
I think Balarogs are so much cooler with wings. I can't imagine the Balrog in LotR without them, because they are just so fricken cool with them.

So, that's about it. I think they are cooler with them, but I'm not sure if they have them anymore... An interesting situation...

Well, my hypothesis offers balrog to have wings at will. Not a pair it can fly with, but definetly one to intimidate and look cool. (Except how can a balrog look cool, it's a fire demon..? :confused: Then again, if one describes them "hot" that could be misunderstood..) I agree that wings look stylish, but I prefer "shadowy" ones over "real". Shadow wings can be stretched hundreds of feets wide, and they still don't get stuck in corridors. Variable size and style, what more could a balrog hope? :D

[Lantarion]

I agree totally with Thuringwethil on her view of Balrog wings being semi-corporeal. :)
And I certainly agree with Khôr, Balrogs just wouldn't be the same as just huge lumps of shadow and flame; in fact, how can a creature/being/spirit which is composed solely of ethereal, inconsistant characteristics NOT have the appearance of having wings? All that shadowy stuff flying around, what does it have if not "wings"? :)
But I also think that what we interpret as 'cool', the people who are witness to a Balrog perceive as 'terrifying, horrific and awe-inspiringly frightening'. It's pretty clear that Tolkien uses the term 'wings' here to connote evil and a menacing, enormous force of pure fear (it's interesting, in fact, that Legolas is undaunted in the Paths of the Dead, but trembles at the rumour and sight of a Balrog); so perhaps he meant for the Balrog itself to realize that by twisting its essense into two wing-like forms it arouses even more fear in its enemies.

[Khôr’nagan]

Lantarion, for one thing, the spirits inhabiting the Paths of the Dead are not evil, only wretched, and they cannot do any physical harm to anything. And, what powers of fear it does have does not effect Elves, and thus Elves do not fear them. Balrogs are a totally different thing and situation. Elvish history is crammed full of stories where Balrogs kill great Elven Kings and Lords. Balrogs are Maiar, while things like Nazgul and the Dead men of Dunharrow are just the spirits of men. Thus, the Elves are afraid of neither the Nazgul nor the Dead Men, though the Nazgul most suredly can do physical harm. But the mere stories of the brutal massacres brought about by the Balrogs were so numerous that even a whisper that a Balrog might still be in Middle-Earth incites great fear. Seeing one with your own eyes is like looking back into the Elder Days, of Morgoth's Dominion. The Balrogs, I imagine, were pictured in at least one painting, and their image is most definitely known. A Balrog can kill a hundred men with relative ease. A Balrog could even kill ten Elvish Warriors, though with great difficulty. To face a Balrog is to face death itself. It is only the greatest of Elves and Men that could possibly stand against a Balrog and survive. Not even Gandalf, a Maia, wielding the legendary sword Glamdring, could survive against a Balrog. Not until the end of a ten-day battle did Gandalf succeed, but he himself was also slain. Therefore, you can imagine the immense power of a person who could fight one-on-one with a Balrog, let alone succeed. Granted, Gandalf was, unlike most Maiar, bound to a corporeal body, and was thus diminished in the strength that he could put forth in battle. When he was sent back, of course, he was like other Maiar, and he was not nearly so limited by his body. So, my point is, Legolas knew the extreme power wielded by the Balrog, and even Celeborn shuddered and became fearful and furious. No Elf could, in his right mind, stand unflinching and unafraid of a Balrog when standing right in front of one.

But anyway, I know that Balrogs would also look cool with shadow wings, but what I meant by "I can't imagine the Balrog in LotR without them," I meant without physical wings enveloped in flame shadow, the way it appeared in the movie. I can also imagine it flying and all that, and I really love the way I see it in my mind.

[Inderjit S]

Doing this removed the need for him to worry if he should include wings in the description. I still doubt that Tolkien thought of the Balrog as having wings. In his early writing on the Fall of Gondolin he had Glorfindel fighting with a Balrog high up a mountain. I find this quote from “The Fall of Gondolin” in The Book of Lost Tales II very suggestive that he thought of them with out wings.

The concept of the Balrogs in the Lost Tales legendarium and LoTR are vastly different. In the Lost Tales legend, they were not Maia. There were vast hordes of them that existed then:

Melko sent a host of Balrogs after them... Gilfanon's Tale: The Travail of the Noldoli; BoLT 1

Balrog GL defines Balrog as 'a kind of fire-demon; crea-
tures and servants of Melko'. With the article the form
is i 'Malrog, plural i 'Malraugin. Separate entries give
bal 'anguish' (original initial consonant mb-), balc
'cruel'; and graug 'demon' Appendix; BoLT 1

In fact in Last Writings (HoME 12) Tolkien says the battle with Glorfindel and the Balrog needed revision. He never says what this 'revision' encompassed.

Just like to diverge here a bit. In the Fall of Gondolin again there are hordes of Balrogs. Not that this is out of context with LoTR. In fact hosts of Balrogs are seen in pre-LoTR workings on the Silmarillion (Quenta Noldorwina, HoME 4) and post-LoTR Silmarillion writings. (Annals of Aman, HoME 10.) It is in the Annals of Aman that he concludes that no more then seven existed and the idea that they were Maia first emerges. These were written in the later 40's and early 1950's some 8-10 years after the chapter/s concerning the Balrog of Khazad-dum was written. The idea of a Balrog appearing in Khazad-dum first appears in draft writings to the scenes in Moria (HoME 6.) When Tolkien is actually writing the scenes he seems rather confused as to what exactly Balrogs are. It is once referred to as coming from Mordor, and once Legolas claims that Balrog/S are coming, implying great numbers. It is also stated that the Balrog may have come from Mordor.

IMO, Balrogs could fly, consider this passage from LQ II (HoME 10)

Far beneath the halls of Angband... the Balrogs lurked still.... Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.

Though Voronwe's words to Tuor
"as yet no servant of the Enemy has dared to fly into the high airs"
may contradict this.

[Lantarion]

Ah ok.. So your view differs quite a lot from mine. :)
There were some strange points in that last post of yours though:
Elvish history is crammed full of stories where Balrogs kill great Elven Kings and Lords.
As far as I recall, only a small handful of Elven Kings or Lords are killed by Balrogs. Ecthelion, Fëanor and Fingon are the ones I remember off the top of my head; there aren't many others. Not much to cram history with, I'd say. ;)
But the mere stories of the brutal massacres brought about by the Balrogs were so numerous that even a whisper that a