Dragons vs Balrogs

Anyone nothiced that all the Dragons ever killed in Middel-earth were offed by humans? Turin killed Glaurung, Earendil killed Ancalagon, Scatha was killed by Fram, Smaug shot by Bard.....

Sure, Glorfindel tackled Balrogs, and Fingolfin went toe-to-toe with Morgoth himself, but Dragons seem to give Elves the willies.....

I also noticed that at the Nirnaeth Arnoediad, Azaghal and his band of merry dwarves saw off a troop of dragons. Stood up to Glaurung himself. But in the 3rd Age, a single Balrog appears in khazad-dum... and the Dwarves are forced to evacuate. What gives?

If Balrogs are that much more powerful than Dragons, why would Morgoth bother breeding them, especially when the operation would dilute his powers even more, if I've understood Michael Martinez's article "Understanding Magic" properly.

And when Glaurung, Morgoth's first working prototype dragon showed himself prematurely, I'd have thought the Elves would suspect something was cooking in Angband. How come they didn't develop any anti-dragon defences? Even after Dagor bragollach, the elf-kingdoms were mostly intact. They'd know about dragons for sure by then. And even after Nirnaeth Arnoediad, Gondolin, Nargothrond, were still there.

But then maybe they did. Bard's Black arrow may date back to the first age, and designed as a dragon killer....


Music.... maketh the Ainur..... come together.... yea.....

I always assumed Dragons were bred because of their powers of flight. I also assumed that Balrogs are more or less subject to Morgoth's will (or Sauron's) and dragons could go out on their own and be generally destructive. The difference between a grenade and a semi-automatic. Control.

A dragon alone can be devastating to an armies
a Balrog, while as powerfull or maybe more powerfull, can only progress by foot or by flying short distance and he can't help the battles much while flying

The original dragons (notably Glaurung) didn't fly. Winged dragons didn't show up until the War of Wrath.

Balrogs are renegade Maiar in service of Morgoth...... that makes them pretty autonomous, and a touch below Sauron (himself a corrupted Maia) himself.

At least, the Silmarillion says theyr'e renegade Maiar...

I suppose that's why a single balrog sent those dwarves packing, Maiar are pretty powerful beings, Queen Melian fenced off Doriath with magic single-handed.... still why would morgoth bother with dragons? Maybe he wanted creatures under his complete control? Maybe the Balrogs, being independent, could ignore orders..... but then again, Glaurung went from Angband without orders sometime before Dagor Bragollach, really lousy discipline....nearly ruined Morgoth's surprise. I never heard of a Balrog breaking discipline.

Too bad the Elves ignored Glaurung's significance. A special band of tough Elves lugging heavy crossbows firing depleted-mithril bolts would have been effective against land-based dragons.... an anti-dragon squad. But noo, it's up to us Men to see off the scaled menaces.....

And they were menaces all the way into the Third Age. Perhaps even longer.

Balrogs were deffinitely Maiar Demons. There's no (revised) text that says otherwise. If you pay attention closely when Tolkien introduces Arien, you discover Arien is actually what the Balrogs would have been had they never become part of the people of Morgoth. Arien evidently was a pure Valarauko.

Have you ever read Michael Martinez's recent essays on Dragons? They're very good.

I wanted to keep myself from posting over here on entmoot, but I have failed. I have to say that no where in Silm. does it say that dragons are "renegade maiar". You shouldn't assume things like that, there are several other possibilities. I am not disagreeing with you on dragons being maia but still, it is debatable.

I have been in a discussion on Balrogs vs. Dragons over at the Barrowdowns( take a look if you like, it is about 3 pages back), and we decided basically(or at least I did) that dragons had more "fire power" but were also more vunerable. Dragons were basically more destructive but could die much easier than a balrog, but not becasue they were weaker. Dragons were very vain, and this would make them vunerable by giving them a feeling of invincibility. Whereas Balrogs were not proud creatures(fled from the War of Wrath and hid in the Misty Mountains). This would give them an upper hand over dragons, because they know that they can die and it keeps them on there toes. So I believe Dragons were deadlier in large scale battle, but not in dueling.

"I wanted to keep myself from posting over here on entmoot, but I have failed. I have to say that no where in Silm. does it say that dragons are "renegade maiar"."

I should certainly say so, we said _Balrogs_, NOT Dragons!

Dragons and Balrogs I think are rather incompatable. I think your average Dragon would probobly be slain by a Balrog. A Dragon's fire is much the same as a Balrog's they're both destructive consumers, and the incarnate body of a Balrog is shrouded in shadow and covered in flame. They also don't seem to exhibit a permanent look. Yet they have some bad-ass weapons, and wouldn't be effected by the hypnotic eyes of a Dragon. I think the Balrog would win, but it largely depends. Who would win, a Man or a Troll? You really can't say.

On the other hand, Gandalf would have had no chance against Smaug. If he could march in there and stick Glamdring through his heart, he probobly would have. But Gandalf (though valiant and dangerous) does not specialize in combat, and he would have either died slaying Smaug, or he would have been burned and consumed. A Wizard is more vulnerable to a Dragon, esp. a Winged Uruloki, than would be a Balrog.

Balrogs were on par with the Nazgul of the Third Age. They led armies and so on. Dragons, while under Morgoth's dominion, were more like freelance agents. Once Morgoth was banished into the Void, the dragons were pretty much on their own.

The only known balrog to survive into the Third Age would most likely have been under some influence from Sauron, but was also on its own, being the last of its kind.

As for how they were killed, I don't think elves or dwarves were intended to be better equiped in fighting each. Rather, it was more or less by chance.

I'm afraid I must beg to differ. The Silmarillion states that several balrogs survived, burying themselves deep within the mountains so that they would avoid the wrath of the Valar and their hosts.

I'm afraid I must also disagree with you about Sauron controlling the one balrog that did show it's face, but that is discussed on another board.

I agree with you about the dragons, though. Once Morgoth was banished, they did go out on their own. And also Glaurung certainly showed that he had a mind of his own, leaving Morgoth's Lair without Morgoth's permission.

I also would like to respectfully disagree about Elves and Men. A Calaquenda will always be more equipped than an Adan of the First Age in battling Balrogs, or any other ill being, in general. There can certainly be exceptions. But ultimately, Elves have a better chance. E.g., who has a better chance against Durin's Bane, Glorfindel or Aragorn? If you (and you said you do) think that Balrogs are on par with the Nazgul, than you must admit the answer is Glorfindel.

As for "chance", I feel many times "chance" is a euphemism for Eru's grace. An appointed action aided by courage, valour, strength, etc..

I agree, Glorfindel would probably be better equipped to fight a balrog than Aragorn. It's a difficult question, but that's the only logical answer. I think that Glorfindel's strength in combat is probably of a different nature from that of Aragorn's. He seems to have a different sort of power, and it's probably his magic that is his greatest weapon, cause I can't imagine him facing and defeating Aragorn in a duel.

But the balrogs and the Nazgul are difficult to compare. They each have power, but to me, Nazgul don't seem as strong as the balrogs. Aragorn and his company drive off five of the Nazgul on Weathertop, while the balrog nearly kills Gandalf, Boromir and Aragorn in Moria.

I think that while the balrogs are good and strong in hand to hand combat, the Nazgul's greatest weapon is fear, and they don't often fight. They overwhelm their foes with their evil, and make them flee in terror, but you don't see them attacking the heroes very much. The only time that they did, in the battle of Minas Tirith, their leader is slain. Not to say they can't fight, its obvious they can. But they are more like wraiths of night and the shadows, only attacking when they have the upper hand, and not with the reckless strength that the balrogs show in the Silmarillion, and the Lord of the Rings.

Exactly. I think militarily (is that a word?) the Nazgul, well, the Witch-King leastways is stronger than the Balrog of Moria. But in face-to-face combat, it's much more difficult, indeed not far from impossible to defeat a Balrog. On the Dagorlad, the Witch-King against the Balrog, the Balrog would win. Technically speaking, the Witch-King could not be defeated without the destruction of the ring or the slaying of him after the sinews of his will has been broken (which could be done by a blade of Westernesse), but the Balrog would probobly destroy his "body" and send him back houseless to his master.

Someone with the air of Aman has to defeat a Balrog, and a Nagul couldn't do that. An interesting question would be if the Balrog could be afraid of the Witch-king. Was he startled by Boromir's horn, or just surprised?

Or was it just the power of the horn, of Araw or something else that held him back?

Yes, in a strategical front, the Nazgul would be the greater weapon because of the terror they give, and that would weaken the firmness of the hearts of the enemy, making them more ready to turn and run. But if it were Gandalf attacking my ranks, I'd be more willing to send the balrog.

I think that the balrog was probably just briefly surprised at Boromir's horn. But it wouldn't have been effected if he had blown it a second time.

When you guys mentioned Glorfindel, was it the First Age one or the Third Age one?

I agree that Nazgul are weaker than Balrogs. I mean Balrogs are Maiar originally, choosing to serve the Dark One.... I mean Morgoth. And the Forsaken , I mean Nazgul are just Men altered by Sauron.

When did the Nazgul first appear anyway? I suppose the Witch-King (some call him Khamul I believe) appeared after Sauron corrupted the Numenoreans and made them into Darkfriends....

Did Sauron give the Nine Rings all at once? Or did he choose his candidates carefully?

I still think Balrogs are more powerful than Dragons simply by virtue of Dragons being killed by Men wielding swords and shooting bows, while Balrogs tend to be killed by First Age Elves and a visiting Third Age Maiar by magical weapons.

Basically Sauron's just a Balrog who chooses to use his brains instead of brute power. Lasted three Ages that way, and became Morgoth's lieutenant instead of cannon fodder.

I tend to think of Sauron as more similar to Melkor. For instance, in the Silmarillion, he was able to disguise himself as a handsome elf, or something, and was able to get into Numenor and corrupt the Numenoreans. He is able to take on different appearances, like Melkor. That's probably one of the reasons that he was Melkor's lieutenant, and the other balrogs were more like warriors, or bodyguards.

In the Silmarillion, I don't think it really tells where or how the Nazgul arose, so I don't know. If you have the Tolkien Companion, though, you could probably look them up and find out in there.

The First Age Glorfindel is the very same as the Third Age one. He's Glorfindel returned from the Halls of Mandos. In one version, he comes back to Middle-earth in the Second Age with the power of Sauron rising again, around the same time as the Blue Wizards (in the latest of Tolkien's Wizard concepts leastways).

We don't really know the Witch-King's name. (Or I don't). Khamul was the second in command. But the Nazgul appeared in the Second Age sometime, when exactly I don't know (I mean, the information is there, I just don't know myself). Perhaps the answer is simply in the Tale of Years.

All the Maiar at one time or another could change form at will. Morgoth lost it soon after the murder of Finwe when he invested himself further into the hroa (substance) of Arda, and Sauron lost the ability when he invested himself into the One Ring, (in which case each time he fell, he was only able to take on a new form in "rebirth", until the Ring was destroyed). I think Sauron ended up being Morgoth's lieutenant because as is said (I think in the Valaquenta), Sauron was the greatest of all the Maiar. Indeed elsewhere it is said of him (in The Silmarillion) that he was only lesser than Morgoth in power because he didn't serve him from the outset (originally he was a person of Aule). Even the Balrogs could still change themselves a little, their shadows and flames seem to expand, recede, leap and quench dynamically (although maybe the latter wasn't at their will). And when exposed to water they became creatures of slime.

Sauron never lost the ability to assume different forms while the One Ring existed. He lost the ability to assume fair forms after he was killed the first time (in the Downfall of Numenor). He was able to take shape again and initiate the war which brought on his second death at the end of the Second Age, but he took shape again in the Third Age.

It's highly unlikely that any dragon could actually match a Balrog in power, since the Maiar were angelic beings who could essentially move mountains. Remember, most of Beleriand was destroyed in the final war with Morgoth. That destructive force had to come from the clash of great powers fighting on both sides. Most of Morgoth's Maiaric followers probably met their ends during that war.

And we do know that Maiar could be killed, so it doesn't really matter who is more powerful than whom. If someone was willing and able to go up against an incarnated Maia, the Maia was most likely risking death.

Death for the Ainur was not like death for Men. The Ainur were spirits who were bound to the Halls of Ea. If their bodies were destroyed they were greatly weakened, essentially because they were overcome with emotion, or consumed with anger. Unless they could regain control of themselves they wouldn't be able to incarnate themselves again. But they didn't cease to exist. They became "spirits of malice", as Tolkien put it. Only a very few truly powerful Maiar would have been able to reincarnate themselves. But Sauron had an advantage because he had invested most of his native strength in the Ring. Hence, when he was slain, the greater part of his strength remained intact. He was therefore able to literally return from the dead, whereas other fallen Maiar couldn't.

I think that the Balrogs are certainly very powerful creatures, and capable of doing massive damage, killing almost anyone they set their minds to killing. But as for them being stronger then dragons, well, that's where I'm afraid I must disagree with you.

In the Silmarillion, it talks about how Glaurung left Angband prematurely, and was forced back into Angband's gates. But it took many, many men to do this, and it caused damage. I cannot see a Balrog doing that, and the dragon wasn't even at full power, being not fully grown.