the definative balrog answer :)

[Galin]

I'm not sure the battle with Glorfindel is much described even in short prose versions after Tolkien had written the encounter in Moria, or finished The Lord of the Rings. Here's what I could find anyway, in the very late (early 1970s) essay on Glorfindel (Last Writings):

'... who in the pass of Cristhorn ('Eagle-cleft') fought with a demon, whom he slew at the cost of his own life.'

'... had sacrrificed his life in defending the fugitives from the wreck of Gondolin against a Demon out of Thangorodrim*

*in the margin Tolkien wrote: 'The duel of Glorfindel and the Demon may need revision'

In the first example the word 'Balrog' was changed to demon for some reason, and then Tolkien uses demon throughout (incidentally because of this I have seen at least one person argue the possibility that Tolkien was thinking of having Glorfindel defeat a great 'demon', but maybe not a Balrog necessarily). Anyway, it is somewhat amusing (to me) that Tolkien wrote 'may need revision' since the last time he had described this battle in any real detail was how many years ago? The quotes above were written no earlier than 1970, and the version of The Fall of Gondolin given in The Book of Lost Tales is that of 'Tuor B' in its final form, before Tolkien read the story at Exeter College in 1920. Going by that alone we have 50 years!

In the detailed long prose version Glorfindel was arguably battling an 'old conception Balrog'. If Tolkien had decided to give Balrogs wings only by the ultimate draft of The Lord of the Rings, then as the former encounter stood, Glorfindel's Balrog had no wings and could not fly in any case. I'm not trying to raise a side discussion on whether or not pre-Lord of the Rings Balrogs had wings or could fly, but for myself I think the evidence is fairly strong that they could not. To give one citation (and I think it is safe to say that in the late 1930s the Balrogs were not yet Maiar), in the Quenta Silmarillion written at this time it was said: '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; for until that day no creatures of his cruel thought had yet assailed the air.'

Back to the texts: from the Later Annals of Beleriand (mid 1930s): 'They fell into ambush there, and Glorfindel of the house of the Golden Flower of Gondolin was slain, but they were saved by Thorndor, and escaped at last into the vale of Sirion.' I had to go back to 1930 (The Quenta) to find text that even describes the matter in enough detail to state they both fell: 'Songs have been sung of the duel of Glorfindel with the Balrog upon a pinnacle of rock in that high place; and both fell to ruin in the abyss.' In any case obviously Tolkien in 1972 could have retained the same basic story as back in 1920 and 1930. It's in his head still, if not again on paper. All I am saying is that as far as actual written text goes, he had only described this battle in any real detail very early, and had then only briefly referred to it before he wrote the encounter in Moria; and only briefly referred to it after the encounter (though I didn't check my linguistic documents here, I should add).

OK, so what about this possible revision? if the Balrog of Gondolin was 'now' a Balrog or 'Demon of might' as in one of the Maiar taken demon form, and if Tolkien now also imagined Balrogs could fly, where before they could not, then JRRT noting to himself this duel 'may need revision' arguably might go well beyond altering the archaic style he had employed back in his youth. And such beings could arguably, at least, now take on even the Eagles of Manwe (at least some of them), even if only at most seven (referring to the marginal note in AAm) ever existed. And the walls of Gondolin would now not be high enough for them, once the city was attacked.

And if so, where before he had held the winged dragons until the very end, now Tolkien would be introducing powerful flying Maiar into the picture very early with respect to the history of Beleriand (and these would be relatively huge beings too, for people who agree with Jackson's version)?

Hmmm

For myself I think 'old Balrogs' had no wings and couldn't fly, and I don't think JRRT gave his 'new Balrogs' flight or actual wings (nor do I think the thing changed shape in The Lord of the Rings after it fell into the water). What I think Tolkien did do was add terror by obscuring the form of the Demon. In the drafts of the Moria encounter CJRT notes that the Balrog could be clearly seen. However Tolkien then noted to himself...

'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 aded 'and a great shadow seemed to black out the light.'

The Bridge, The Treason of Isengard

I think this is one of the main moments of change in external Balrog history, along with making them Maiar and possibly drastically reducing their numbers.

Tolkien obscured it with shadow, and not a shadow as in 'lack of light' but ultimately with its own cloak of darkness, with a '... Dark which seems not lack but a thing of its own: for it was indeed made by malice out of light, and it had the power to pierce the eye, and to enter heart and mind, and strangle the vey will.' The Annals of Aman

Ok that description concerns Ungoliante actually some kind of living shadow like that then. Which at one point in Moria, looked like wings.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Galin

I'm not sure the battle with Glorfindel is much described even in short prose versions after Tolkien had written the encounter in Moria, or finished The Lord of the Rings. Here's what I could find anyway, in the very late (early 1970s) essay on Glorfindel (Last Writings):

'... who in the pass of Cristhorn ('Eagle-cleft') fought with a demon, whom he slew at the cost of his own life.

'... had sacrrificed his life in defending the fugitives from the wreck of Gondolin against a Demon out of Thangorodrim*

*in the margin Tolkien wrote: 'The duel of Glorfindel and the Demon may need revision'

In the first example the word 'Balrog' was changed to demon for some reason, and then Tolkien uses demon throughout (incidentally because of this I have seen at least one person argue the possibility that Tolkien was thinking of having Glorfindel defeat a great 'demon', but maybe not a Balrog necessarily). Anyway, it is somewhat amusing (to me) that Tolkien wrote 'may need revision' since the last time he had described this battle in any real detail was how many years ago? The quotes above were written no earlier than 1970, and the version of The Fall of Gondolin given in The Book of Lost Tales is that of 'Tuor B' in its final form, before Tolkien read the story at Exeter College in 1920. Going by that alone we have 50 years!

So there was maybe a 50 year lapse.. not very surprising. That would be fairly typical of Tolkien, especially in his later years when he had much available time to go through everything he had once written.

Originally Posted by Galin

In the detailed long prose version Glorfindel was arguably battling an 'old conception Balrog'. If Tolkien had decided to give Balrogs wings only by the ultimate draft of The Lord of the Rings, then as the former encounter stood, Glorfindel's Balrog had no wings and could not fly in any case. I'm not trying to raise a side discussion on whether or not pre-Lord of the Rings Balrogs had wings or could fly, but for myself I think the evidence is fairly strong that they could not. To give one citation (and I think it is safe to say that in the late 1930s the Balrogs were not yet Maiar), in the Quenta Silmarillion written at this time it was said: '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; for until that day no creatures of his cruel thought had yet assailed the air.'

This really brings in the question of whether the Balrog could alter its shape or not. As mentioned earlier, the Balrog would need a very well-working set of wings to achieve the needed upward lift, so whether there were no flying Balrogs during those earlier years does not really exclude the possibility of wings. It certainly renders it less likely though.

Originally Posted by Galin

For myself I think 'old Balrogs' had no wings and couldn't fly, and I don't think JRRT gave his 'new Balrogs' flight or actual wings (nor do I think the thing changed shape in The Lord of the Rings after it fell into the water). What I think Tolkien did do was add terror by obscuring the form of the Demon. In the drafts of the Moria encounter CJRT notes that the Balrog could be clearly seen. Tolkien notes to himself...

There is no textual evidence of flight, so anyone arguing in favor of flight would be purely speculating. And since we know little about the nature of the wing-like form that the Balrog had in Moria we do not know whether they were wings nor whether the wings had any ability to achieve lift.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

So there was maybe a 50 year lapse.. not very surprising. That would be fairly typical of Tolkien, especially in his later years when he had much available time to go through everything he had once written.

Well I found it amusing anyway, as I say, for JRRT to note this 50 years later, considering the textual history. The archaic style at least would 'need revision'. But moreover if early Balrogs could not fly (as I would argue, and were never described with wings), and were now powerful Maiar, there was other 'revision' possible here -- and possible revision that might go beyond Glorfindel's battle, which was the point I was trying to make with the dragons and etc.

This really brings in the question of whether the Balrog could alter its shape or not. As mentioned earlier, the Balrog would need a very well-working set of wings to achieve the needed upward lift, so whether there were no flying Balrogs during those earlier years does not really exclude the possibility of wings. It certainly renders it less likely though.

For myself I would not be much interested in arguing if pre-Lord of the Rings Balrogs had wings of any kind if they could not fly. There is nothing to suggest it in the texts concerned, and in The Book of Lost Tales it was said Melkor tore the wings off of birds to try and discover the secret of flight.

There is no textual evidence of flight, so anyone arguing in favor of flight would be purely speculating. And since we know little about the nature of the wing-like form that the Balrog had in Moria we do not know whether they were wings nor whether the wings had any ability to achieve lift.

A fair enough summation though I'm not sure exactly why this is in response to what you quoted of my earlier post.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Galin

For myself I would not be much interested in arguing if pre-Lord of the Rings Balrogs had wings of any kind if they could not fly.

A moot point agreed.

Originally Posted by Galin

A fair enough summation though I'm not sure exactly why this is in response to what you quoted of my earlier post.

Raised the issue in agreement since you wrote that you don't believe the Balrog had wings, and as there is no evidence of flying, and there is only cursory evidence of the presence of wings, any argument in favour of any of the above would be nothing but speculation. Moreover, the point I make is that for those who argue that Balrogs have wings, that in itself is no guarantee that the Balrog could use the wings to fly.

And lol I see you editted it to "my opinion", though don't you agree that it is in reality a fact, not a mere opinion. There is no evidence of flight in the Lord of the Rings and there is no in-depth information as to what kind of attributes these 'wings' had.

[Galin]

OK thanks. I guess someone agreeing with me can sometimes confuse me.



And I edited it back, and only edited it in because some say (not me) that the Hithlum passage might be 'textual evidence' of flight.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Galin

OK thanks. I guess someone agreeing with me can sometimes confuse me.



And I edited it back, and only edited it in because some say (not me) that the Hithlum passage might be 'textual evidence' of flight.

Is it so? A passage in the Lord of the Rings? If so, you're right, it's an opinion. Even though you don't agree with it, could you provide the quote for that passage so I can look at it?

Thanx

[Galin]

By the 'Hithlum passage' I mean the one that concerns the rescue of Morgoth by the Balrogs. Some seem to conclude it must mean flight because it is argued that only flying beings could have come to Morgoth in time (I would raise earlier versions of the passage in which orcs are also mentioned).

'Deep in forgotten places that cry was heard. Far beneath the halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, the Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their lord. Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.' Later Quenta Silmarillion II, Morgoth's Ring (though again, earlier versions of this rescue note Orcs).

Others might even raise 'flying from Thangorodrim' as 'textual evidence' from Appendix A (instead of interpreting it to mean 'fleeing'). 'Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden ...' Appendix A Durin's Folk (I note the use of 'flying', for example, when describing fleeing orcs later in the same section).

I guess it depends on what one means by 'textual evidence'. But I would agree that there is no text that certainly and easily states Balrogs can fly or had wings like that of a bat, for example.

If there was...

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

The early period when Ungoliant confronted Morgoth seems to me to be a period during which all of the incarnate spirits could disincarnate and incarnate bodies at will. So without bodies one might accurately consider their mode of travel as flying, and who knows what great speeds they might attain?

I don't think there is any strong evidence for Balroggian (Balrogish?) flight anywhere, and shape-shifting is only marginally less suspect, IMO.

[Galin]

Here's something the EoA did not include in the linked article (apologies if it's already in the thread somewhere). In Osanwe-centa it is said (I edited this a bit):

'Here Pengolodh adds a long note on the use of hroar by the Valar. In brief he says that though in origin a 'self-arraying', it may tend to approach the state of 'incarnation', especially with the lesser members of that order (the Maiar). 'It is said that the longer and the more the same hroa is used, the greater is the bond of habit, and the less do the 'self-arrayed' desire to leave it.' (...)

'Melkor alone of the Great became at last bound to a bodily form; but that was because of the use that he made of this in his purpose to become Lord of the Incarnate, and of the great evils that he did in the visible body. Also he had dissipated his native powers in the control of his agents and servants, so that he became in the end, in himself and without their support, a weakened thing, consumed by hate and unable to restore himself from the state into which he had fallen. Even his visible form he could no longer master, so that its hideousness could not any longer be masked, and it showed forth the evil of his mind. So it was also with even some of his greatest servants, as in these later days we see: they became wedded to the forms of their evil deeds, and if these bodies were taken from them or destroyed, they were nullified, until they had rebuilt a semblance of their former habitations, with which they could continue the evil courses in which they had become fixed.' (Pengolodh here evidently refers to Sauron in particular, from whose arising he fled at last from Middle-earth.)' JRRT, Osanwe-kenta note 5, Vinyar Tengwar

For possible consideration at least.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Great find, Galin. That's the kind of stuff I had in mind, though I didn't know the source. I suppose my view depends somewhat on whether the Ungoliant versus Morgoth & the Balrogs episode should be considered "in these later days" or early enough that they could and would rather easily disincarnate.

I think this should influence the ideas of shape-shifting, as well. If in later days such as the Third Age the long-embodied Maiar could no longer leave and reproduce their bodies, it seems probable that they could also no longer alter those bodies and willfully shape-shift either, even if they once had that ability.

So in conclusion, the Moria balrog couldn't fly and couldn't shape-shift.

[Attalus]

That indeed is a great find, Galin and seems to provide much insight as to the Balrogs' ability (or inability) to shapeshift. I, myself, believe that the appearance of wings on Durin's Bane on the Bridge was a type of 'threat display,' as modern biological jargon would phrase it, intended to overawe and firghten. Didn't work in Gandalf's case, did it?

[Valarauko5]

Apparently I've been gone for too long from this thread because we're back into the same old stupid arguments guys. Really, we're all intelligent people. That is a nice little article Galin, but it proves nothing and has little bearing on Balrogs themselves. You say it probably refers specifically to Sauron right? But long after Melkor was cast out of the realms, Sauron could still choose different forms. And why on earth are we discussing what material, of all things, a Balrogs wings are made of! That's absurd! You guys are trying to apply real world physics, to something that defies the laws of physics already! Can anything in the real world control the shadows around it? Please, can we stick with the proper fantasy world idea here? I might add, just in case, that I never said they did or did not specifically have wings (except in silliness about my personal balrog shape) I was trying to nullify the debate, because a Maia can change shape if it wants. And no, they don't just change according to their surroundings. That would mean that Melkor would have looked pretty in Valamar. And wether or not the original text could have possibly meant original Balrogs, the original descriptions of Balrogs are very little like how the book itself describes the Balrog. I'm sorry if this sounds like flaming, but things like wether or not they could fly with their wings is a mute point, especially with Gandalf. Even if the Balrog tried to fly away (which it wouldn't because even in our earlier discussion we decided the most likely reason for it waking up was Gandalf's pressence) flying combat is not something you want to do against something that shoots lightning at you. (this is mentioned in The Two Towers) If he had tried to escape he would have been shot down. And then where would he be. Besides, he knew the area. His most likely shot would be to catch Gandalf unawares in an area he knew. Besides, he's not worried about some little humans and their swords. "Swords are no more use here" As Gandalf said. He could deal with them later. Out of curiosity, (and this may seem strange) why do are some of you so against wings?

[Valarauko5]

I will fully admit that I like the idea of wings on a Balrog. It makes it more terrifying. But I'm trying to be completely logical and fair about this. It would seem to me that the whole idea of wether or not they have wings is mute because of their ability to change form. Obviously the article Galin found is good in and of istelf, but is wholely defeated in its usefulness here by the fact that the text itself says it changes to a different form later. (please Galin, don't take this the wrong way. It's good that you're trying and I appreciate it. I don't want to offend anyone here) Again, please forgive me if I sound upset. It's just a little aggrevating sometimes to see this sort of thing. I don't really believe that Tolkien meant for us to argue over this. That's why I even got on these Balrog threads. I think the argument of wings is mute because of this, and that we should try to eliminate this whole idea of arguing over it. We were discussing it quite well earlier, but now it seems we're back to arguing. Technicalities like "could its wing material support its weight" are just ridiculous guys. Honestly. If we're going to discuss this, let's find real hard evidence that it can't shape change. I haven't found anything yet that convinces me it can't.

[Coffeehouse]

I think I see the line of reasoning your at.

Though I must say I think there have been some excellent points raised by previous posters here, and really they aren't completely irrelevant.

I happen to believe that real-world physics do apply to a greater extent than not in Tolkien's Middle Earth. Although the presence of magic doesn't quite add up to real-world physics, neither does magic come easy. It has its physics and Tolkien often manages to tie these two realms of physics into each others so that there is a coherence.

In any case, in relation to populations, only the minority of creatures in Middle Earth have the ability to wield magic of some sort. The Hobbits for example are nearly entirely detached from it, arguable only hobbits exposed to adventures into the greater world are affected to some degree or another.

But I digress: I just think that including physics as a tool for understanding behaviour is appropriate, because although Tolkien devised a world with magic there is much in its foundation that relies on the physics of our own world

Originally Posted by Valarauko5

Honestly. If we're going to discuss this, let's find real hard evidence that it can't shape change. I haven't found anything yet that convinces me it can't.

For my part, I am so far not convinced the least about shape-changing. Based on what I've read I can see no extensive ability to change shape, so if you argue that it can change shape, the burden of proof rests upon your arguments. I.e., if there is evidence that it can, it's up to you to present it, right?

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

Apparently I've been gone for too long ... stupid arguments ... it proves nothing and has little bearing on Balrogs themselves. ...That's absurd! ... a Maia can change shape if it wants. And no, they don't just change according to their surroundings. That would mean that Melkor would have looked pretty in Valamar. ...this sounds like flaming, but things like wether or not they could fly with their wings is a mute point, ... Again, please forgive me if I sound upset. It's just a little aggrevating sometimes to see this sort of thing. I don't really believe that Tolkien meant for us to argue over this. That's why I even got on these Balrog threads. I think the argument of wings is mute because of this, and that we should try to eliminate this whole idea of arguing over it. We were discussing it quite well earlier, but now it seems we're back to arguing. Technicalities like "could its wing material support its weight" are just ridiculous guys. Honestly. If we're going to discuss this, let's find real hard evidence that it can't shape change. I haven't found anything yet that convinces me it can't.

1. Pot, meet kettle. Nobody was arguing or insulting. It's been an excellent and civil discussion of an unsettled and perhaps unprovable point.

2. Moot. The word is moot.

3. The final two sentences attempt to shape the debate in a way that is impossible to succeed. Requiring us to find hard evidence that something is impossible without needing to provide any evidence that it is possible in the first place? Yeah, that's shaping the discussion fairly and with an open mind.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

1. Pot, meet kettle. Nobody was arguing or insulting. It's been an excellent and civil discussion of an unsettled and perhaps unprovable point.

2. Moot. The word is moot.

3. The final two sentences attempt to shape the debate in a way that is impossible to succeed. Requiring us to find hard evidence that something is impossible without needing to provide any evidence that it is possible in the first place? Yeah, that's shaping the discussion fairly and with an open mind.

Really I couldn't agree more. To me this has seemed a productive discussion of a topic that really does not lend us much information. With the help of Galin it seems we've come to an understanding of the Balrog as much as can be expected, debating something that may perhaps be an

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

unprovable point

I want to raise some of the points you raised Valarauko..

Originally Posted by Valarauko5

I will fully admit that I like the idea of wings on a Balrog. It makes it more terrifying.

Agree to that, but although the Balrog produced a wing-shaped form at the Bridge of Khazad-dûm it does not mean that it actually had permanent wings. It may have been that all the smoke, fire and dark matter that emanated from it merely provoked an illusion in the eyes of the Company. The effect, as you say, is terrifying Yet not necessarily permanent.

So I think it's fair to say that although there was a wing-like shape present, that in itself does not conclude that a Balrog had wings. Neither does it conclude that a Balrog can change shape at will.

Yet you seem to assume that..

Originally Posted by Valarauko5

It would seem to me that the whole idea of wether or not they have wings is mute because of their ability to change form.

Originally Posted by Valarauko5

Obviously the article Galin found is good in and of istelf, but is wholely defeated in its usefulness here by the fact that the text itself says it changes to a different form later.

I don't see which quote gives evidence of this. Quite the contrary, as Galin quotes, (and as we know is the case for Sauron), the ability to change shapes seems to diminish with the depth of evil a creature sinks to:

Originally Posted by Galin

they became wedded to the forms of their evil deeds

Originally Posted by Valarauko5

Technicalities like "could its wing material support its weight" are just ridiculous guys.

How is that ridiculous?

The creatures of Tolkien's Middle Earth exist in a world where there is magic, but although creatures such as the Balrog are fantastical, ancient creatures, they still must adhere to the environment in which they live. The Elves, the Ents, even Tom Bombadil, is securely bounded to the laws of nature (albeit modified in the magical realm)

And if there is one property in Middle Earth that seems to be very similar to ours it is gravity.

Gravity plays in on our discussion: The ability to fly is dependent on lift, just as Smaug and the Eagles need wings to fly, the Nazgûl need winged beasts to fly, Sarumann, Gandalf and Radagast the Brown for all their magical endeavours cannot fly, the Eye of Sauron cannot fly, the magical One Ring cannot fly (it's history indeed centres much around it's proneness to the pull of gravity)

[Attalus]

I agree with you, Coffeehouse. Tolkien went to great lengths to make his fantasy world congruent with physical reality, witness the trouble he took to keep the Moon's phases consistent throughout the saga. Galadriel puts great emphasis on the *naturalness* of Elf-magic and its essentialy uncontrollable nature. The more magic was controlled, (e.g., by Saruman, the "vulgar, scientific magician," or even the Smiths of Eregion), the more evil it wrought. I think it is fascinating, and a large part of Tolkien's continuing allure, that he did *NOT* spell out everything, leaving us to guess and sppeculate. He even said, about Tom Bombadil, that his nature was unexplained on purpose, for a fFantasy should contain fantastic elements. The same, I think, may be extended to the Balrogs.

[Gordis]

Well, let us forget this little interlude which, sorry to say, looked a lot like unprovoked flaming and return to our nice and polite discussion.

As far as I see, the important thing is to determine whether Durin's Bane has already lost his Maiaric ability to shape-shift or not.

Let us look at Galin's quote again:

'It is said that the longer and the more the same hroa is used, the greater is the bond of habit, and the less do the 'self-arrayed' desire to leave it.' (...)
'Melkor alone of the Great became at last bound to a bodily form; but that was because of the use that he made of this in his purpose to become Lord of the Incarnate, and of the great evils that he did in the visible body. Also he had dissipated his native powers in the control of his agents and servants, so that he became in the end, in himself and without their support, a weakened thing, consumed by hate and unable to restore himself from the state into which he had fallen. Even his visible form he could no longer master, so that its hideousness could not any longer be masked, and it showed forth the evil of his mind. '

and at another one from Morgoth's Ring ("Orcs"):

In any case is it likely or possible that even the least of the Maiar would become Orcs? Yes: both outside Arda and in it, before the fall of Utumno. Melkor had corrupted many spirits - some great, as Sauron, or less so, as Balrogs. The least could have been primitive (and much more powerful and perilous) Orcs; but by practising when embodied procreation they would (cf. Melian) [become] more and more earthbound, unable to return to spirit-state (even demon-form), until released by death (killing), and they would dwindle in force.

So, the factors that contribute to the eventual loss of shape-shifting ability are:
1. How long the same hroa is used
Here we can say that Durin's Bane used this hroa for at least as long as Sauron used his, or much longer (if we consider Sauron's subsequent incarnations as totally different hroar)
2. How much the same hroa is used (I guess that to use your hroa for walking/flying around and fighting is worse than to sleep in it).
Well, after the First Age Durin's Bane mostly used his hroa to sleep.
3. How much evil is done while using the hroa.
Here I don't think one of the Balrogs under Gothmog could do more evil than Sauron, Morgoth's right hand. Yet, Sauron by the end of the FA has NOT lost his shape-shifting ability, it happened around the time of his first "death" in the Downfall. DB slept for an Age and a half, then killed a lot of Dwarves, then, kept rather low profile. Was it enough to loose shape-shifting ability? I don't know,
4. How strong the Maia was at the beginning and how much power became dissipated. Here DB is at a disadvantage vs Sauron, he was likely much weaker from the start.
5. Has the Maia ever been killed and reincarnated?
Here, for DB we have to answer NO. - a point in his favor.
6. Did the Maia practice procreation while using the hroa?
DB has no love story that we know of, so we can assume he remained chaste.

So, 1 and 4 are in DB's disadvantage, 2, 5 and 6 seem to be in his favor, 3 is unclear. The result is uncertain.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gordis

It sounds very much like shape-shifting to me. A thing of fire and shadow became a thing of slime (to adjust to the surroundings), and then turned back again into the thing of fire.

I don't think this passage can only be explained with shape shifting abilities. To me, it sounds like the slimy but strong shape is just the same shape as the Balrog but simply without the fire. (I kinda liked Jonathan idea of the slime being oil and therefor fuel to the fire. It leads to... interesting mental pictures...)

That said, I am of the opinion that Balrogs had shape shifting abilities, but somehow far more limited, than say Sauron. I sort of always assumed that while Maiar all had the ability to change heir rainment, once they choose a shape, that ability diminished greatly. The quote Galin posted in post #169 seems to partly support this view. And apart from Sauron, there appears to be no creature in the texts capable of changing repeatedly into a variety of forms. At least, I currently don't remember one. Werewolves are mentioned, but if we follow the classic example therein, they only have two shapes, the wolf-form and a humanoid form. Thuringwethil appears to have a bat-form and/or something of a mix of bat with humanoid in it.

I wonder whether the Balrog couldn't quite change its shape, but rather its appearance. Could it perhaps control more how people perceived it, than its actual shape? Sort of like the presence of nazgul invoked people with a feeling of dread, that the balrog's presence made people think it was larger and more powerful than it actually was? I was particularly struck in that regard by the earlier quoted: 'It felt larger than it looked'. It was able to control fire as well as shadow, could it have used shadow as a sort of smoke-screen, to make it more menacing and larger than his true shape was? Luthien, being of Maia-blood too, was able to change her and Beren's appearance to Thuringwethil and a wolf, but it would appear without actually changing form.

But the quote did brought something to my attention that I hadn't noticed before. The Balrog only breaks out in flames again when he came into the sun light. Would he have needed the light or fire to ignite again?

Originally Posted by Valarauko5

And why on earth are we discussing what material, of all things, a Balrogs wings are made of! That's absurd! You guys are trying to apply real world physics, to something that defies the laws of physics already!

I disagree, this is hardly absurd. While Middle-earth is a fantasy world with magical aspects that our world has not, this does not stop one from identifying rules acording to which this magic does work. Tolkien's magic doesn't work purely random, he made great attempts to remain consistant so there are definitions and patterns we can detect in the Middle-earth magic even if we have nothing similar in our own world.

We're dealing with highly speculative matters and I'm pretty sure we are all aware of that, but there's no shame in that and it can lead to very interesting discussions. So if people wish to engage in these discussions, they are prefectly welcome to. I for one, find this discussion very interesting, both in reading what has been posted and trying to compose my own opinions and see how well the textual evidence supports it or not.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

That said, I am of the opinion that Balrogs had shape shifting abilities, but somehow far more limited, than say Sauron. I sort of always assumed that while Maiar all had the ability to change heir rainment, once they choose a shape, that ability diminished greatly. The quote Galin posted in post #169 seems to partly support this view. And apart from Sauron, there appears to be no creature in the texts capable of changing repeatedly into a variety of forms.

I think it is a very good idea: the shape-shifting ability doesn't disappear all of a sudden but diminishes gradually, becomes more and more limited, when some factors I have tried to list above are at work.

Take Sauron. In FA he was able to change from his usual shape into a wolf then into a serpent, then back into his own form, then into a vampire-bat - all in matter of minutes. In the Second Age he was able to assume different fair or foul humanoid forms but we don't see him assuming animal shapes or flying anymore. Had he not lost this ability, perhaps he would have survived the Downfall flying away from the doomed Island or swimming away as a fish. Then after the first reincarnation he even lost the ability to assume fair forms, to mask his evilness.

The Istari, much restricted in their abilities while on mission to ME, seem to be on a level with Sauron of the late SA or even TA: they could change their appearance somewhat (Saruman could look exactly like Gandalf), but definitely couldn't fly without Eagles.