If balrogs had wings how could they fall?

[Kirinki54]

Originally posted by Inoldonil
They were called demons, but they were not the demons you're thinking of, as they were made by Melko. There weren't really Maiar (I don't think, I'm not very familar with the stories) in the mythology of the Book of Lost Tales, there were the Valar (the Gods) and the Children of the Gods. Eönwë, for instance, was Fionwe son of Manwe.

From the Balrogs depicted in the Sil I get the impression they were indeed Maiar, not made by Melkor but corrupted by him.

[Ñólendil]

That's because Christopher Tolkien was trying to make them in accord with the Balrog of the LotR and the later idea as best he could. But the narratives that those Balrogs are drawn from are nontheless ones that include man-sized demon creatures riding into battle, a Race of beings bred by Melko.

[afro-elf]

K54


I think the kid is speaking of the Prof's earliest idea's.

Not what Chris wrote.

[Ñólendil]

Oh yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks afro-elf, I guess I didn't realize what he was quoting.

[afro-elf]

You were on target kid. I think we were writing at the same time and yours posted faster than mine.

[FrodoFriend]

Will this debate ever be resolved?

There was a Balrog in my dryer today, but I ran away and hid in terror and forgot to see if it had real wings or not. By the time I ventured out of my hiding place it was gone again. Sorry guys.
Hey, I have an idea! I'll go ask Jeeves!

[Arathorn]

...and I thought they were Maiar who failed their finals and couldn't go to Valar school.

Note that in LotR: The poor balrog tries in vain to reason with Gandalf, a professor of ages ago for his grades; but alas...

Gandalf: "YOU....CANNOT....PAAASSS!!!!"

[afro-elf]

OUCH!

[Lefty Scaevola]

As large as a balrog is, aproaching the size and likely exceeding the mass of the largest flying creatures, its flight capabilities must be very marginal (assuming the same limitaions apply to its incanarte form as other flying creatures). Small battle damage to its wither wings or flight muscles (which would be anchored in front to the sternum) would probaly ground it for a while. Nor would it be abale to fly carrying the load a a full weight human or elf.

[Ñólendil]

As large as a balrog is, aproaching the size and likely exceeding the mass of the largest flying creatures, its flight capabilities must be very marginal (assuming the same limitaions apply to its incanarte form as other flying creatures). Small battle damage to its wither wings or flight muscles (which would be anchored in front to the sternum) would probaly ground it for a while. Nor would it be abale to fly carrying the load a a full weight human or elf.

At the risk of being rude: are you joking? When did the Balrog become a bird? It's wings were of darkness, and they were not even permanent, they developed before the eyes of the Fellowship.

[Andúril]

Wings oF sHaDoW!!!

Please note that the phrase is underlined, semi-bold, semi-italicized, and in semi-caps. This is because I'm trying to get a point across. Also, please note the use of the smiley, another point-getting-across tool. Thank you. That is all)

[edit: I have edited this message because I wanted to change the bold to semi-bold, and the italicized to semi-italicized. I have also added a smiley, because I am frustrated at the fact that I wasn't happy with my initial use of the VB code in this post. Good day to you. ]

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
At the risk of being rude: are you joking? When did the Balrog become a bird? It's wings were of darkness, and they were not even permanent, they developed before the eyes of the Fellowship.

Like any other part of a Maiar in incarnate form (assuming the wings exist at all), if they are they a materialized, they are subject to material damage, just like all the physical forms Sauron could take, IF not material and NOT able to interact physically with material substances, then they would not be used for flight anyway, since in that case they could not pysically push air around. That is just going back to the prior unsettled argument of "do they have wings", which is ASSUMED in a discussion of flight as a sine qua non. If no flight capable wings, then no flight. I do not recall magically levitating creatures form Middle earth, only the on magical flying ship, Vingflot.

As for precise obsevation by the very frightened, hurt, and shocked hobbits in the fellowhip(whose acounts would constitute the material for this part of story, "as observed by the Little people") about the exact nature of the demon cloaked in flame and darkness who was menacing them, I would not bet on them getting many of the details or analysis correct, much beyond BIG SCARY BAD THING. I am afraid that any judgment based on their acount is more speculation than analysis. This limitation of original source would apply to many parts of the triology where it is supposedly the obersevation of hobbits, or other in story charactors, dealing with situations and creatures beyond their experience understanding when they began the journey. Most such debate is thus "angels dancing on the head of a pin" and subject to GIGO limitation. Recall always that JRRT's middle earth work is not written as if by an all seeing and knowing outside person, but are compilation of stories fallable creature involved in situtation of great stress, and often, as in much of the first age material, oral traditions later recorded. Even that which is 'canon' as published the tales can be the result of erroneous observation or judgment by the charactor or in story scribe involved. This is a tremendous advantage for an author, ANY continuity error can thus be assigned to "Bilbo did it" or some varient on in story scribe error or embelisment.

[BeardofPants]

Man-shaped. Wreathed in shadow. Ergo, wings of shadow.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Gosh I wish this thread was dead.

[Ñólendil]

Lefty, your wordy, impersonal post fails to impress me. The only part of the Balrog that could be solid is his man-like form under all the darkness, or fire, depending on which he is in. Take a look at the passage again. At first, what it was could not be seen, but it is said that it was "of man-shape maybe, yet greater." About it is a great darkness. It leaps over the chasm and catches fire. Now it is both surrounded by darkness, and is wreathed in flame. It even has a mane of fire. It approached Gandalf, and Gandalf tells him that the "dark fire will not avail" him, calling him "Flame of Udûn". Accordingly "the fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew, and reached out like two vast wings". Soon "its wings were spread from wall to wall", but those wings are still made up of "shadow", or darkness. They are not like the wings of a bird, and that's not semantics.

I am afraid that any judgment based on their acount is more speculation than analysis.

Now you are throwing out the entire detailed description -- the only one we have of the revised Balrogs -- because a Hobbit wrote a lot of the Red Book? Throw it all out then! Let us burn all essays and theories, because Hobbits tried to recount the story! Nevermind the fact that Hobbits were capable remembering accurately what they accurately perceived, or that there were eight others present to go for information, their judgment is bull-pucky. Tell me Lefty, on what account do you base your notions concerning it's flight capability, it's flight muscles, or the maximum possible weight it could carry? At least I am using an account that does not come from myself.

[Kirinki54]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
Now you are throwing out the entire detailed description -- the only one we have of the revised Balrogs -- because a Hobbit wrote a lot of the Red Book? Throw it all out then! Let us burn all essays and theories, because Hobbits tried to recount the story! Nevermind the fact that Hobbits were capable remembering accurately what they accurately perceived, or that there were eight others present to go for information, their judgment is bull-pucky. Tell me Lefty, on what account do you base your notions concerning it's flight capability, it's flight muscles, or the maximum possible weight it could carry? At least I am using an account that does not come from myself.

I quite agree, Lefty. Would not the consequences of this line of reasoning be rather absurd? We cannot pick and choose what contents seems likely or not in our eyes.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
Now you are throwing out the entire detailed description -- the only one we have of the revised Balrogs -- because a Hobbit wrote a lot of the Red Book?

I have had a carreer of skeptical questioning of evidence and scources, particularly non first hand accounts.
Prosecutor: Now Mr. TolKien how did you come by this story about, say, Shelob?
I translated it from a thousands year book I found, in long dead languages and a different alphabet.
P: where did this book come from?
J: It was transcribed by a scribe in the Kingdom of Gondor, gone now for over 5000 years.
P: Where did he get it?
J: It was written by Biblo Baggins.
P: Did he see the giant spider.
J: No his adopted son Frodo told him about it
P: Did Frodo got a good look at Shelob?
J: No, Shelob bushwacked him from behind, Sam got a better look and described it to Frodo.
P: Was Sam an expert zoologist, trained in scientific observation?
J: No, he is a gardener, and I believe he was very exited and flustered at the time.
The whole point being that that establihing a set canon of detail is a futile endevor, a large volume of the text cannot be with its own internal logic be demonstrated as "fact" given the form of the fiction being a tranlation of ancient texts. I find it droll that many fans put so much energy trying to convince others that their vision of this great literature is superior and adopted by all true beleivers, rather than sharing their visions and interperlations.

Tell me Lefty, on what account do you base your notions concerning it's flight capability, it's flight muscles, or the maximum possible weight it could carry?

I do not have a notion that they can fly at all "(assuming the wings exist at all)". I was just discussing the hypothisis of the thread starter that if they could fly why did they fall, working with his assumption or judgment of flight. I myself have never believed them to be flying creatures at all, and do not recall any text metioning Balrog flight. I concieve of them as ground ponders or great bulk and strength. Yet, I can work within someone else's conception and hypothetical, and helping him out with his enjoyment of the book.
My ideas on the limitations on large flying creatures are based on basic biology and zoology.

[Keith K]

I have always felt that the battle between Gandalf and the Balrog was more a battle of magic rather than a contest of arms. Sword, staff, flaming whip, etc. were merely tools to focus much deeper powers. I am familiar with the early Balrogs, but have always envisioned the 'Moria Balrog' when reading about them in the Sil. It's too confusing to continuously substitute different types of Balrogs in the various stories. Thats my Balrog, and I'm sticking to it!!!
As to why the Balrog fell from the bridge.....he was stunned from one of Gandalf's spells and dropped like a stone.

[Ñólendil]

I have had a carreer of skeptical questioning of evidence and scources, particularly non first hand accounts.

The Lord of the Rings is not meant to be a first hand account. Do you intend to disregard every theory based on it, whilst presenting your own that are not?

The whole point being that that establihing a set canon of detail is a futile endevor, a large volume of the text cannot be with its own internal logic be demonstrated as "fact" given the form of the fiction being a tranlation of ancient texts. I find it droll that many fans put so much energy trying to convince others that their vision of this great literature is superior and adopted by all true beleivers, rather than sharing their visions and interperlations.

I do not discourage the sharing of visions. But in a discussion such as this, in which readers are trying to answer the question concerning a Balrogs wings, I think it is just plain wrong to turn to one's own imagination before Tolkien's. I don't think the starter of this topic was talking about your Balrogs, or mine, I think he was talking about Tolkien's. And anyone who does not admit The Lord of the Rings as canon is just plain hopeless.

I do not have a notion that they can fly at all "(assuming the wings exist at all)". I was just discussing the hypothisis of the thread starter that if they could fly why did they fall, working with his assumption or judgment of flight. I myself have never believed them to be flying creatures at all, and do not recall any text metioning Balrog flight. I concieve of them as ground ponders or great bulk and strength. Yet, I can work within someone else's conception and hypothetical, and helping him out with his enjoyment of the book.
My ideas on the limitations on large flying creatures are based on basic biology and zoology.

I wonder why you did not explain any of this to begin with. It read to me and I am sure mostly everyone else as though you were explaining the nature of Balrog-flight. Anyway, assuming a Balrog could fly, why must what we know about "basic biology and zoology" apply? The Balrog can be said to be "alive", but it was also a spirit, and I don't think biology has much to say for that. Moreover it was certainly not an animal. Unless you want to change what a Balrog is, I don't think your comments on its flight are a good answer, using the book as a guide, or your imagination. That is to say, what you "imagined", if that's what you want to say you were doing, is not very logical considering the nature of Balrogs. Or maybe it's narrow-minded, to use birds as a model for flying Balrogs.

[Nibs]

What if he flapped his arms really REALLY fast?

Or she and her... don't want to seem sexist. An angry female balrog would be much scarier than an angry male one.

"You cursed Fellowship!!! I just mopped the whole dang place this last decade!"