Return of thy Balrog

[Bilbo]

In reply to my other thread on "Balrogs, and Where?", if Balrogs are indeed tortured Maia, how were they tortured, and who tortured them?

[markedel]

One would assume Morgoth...

[Lightice]

They weren't tortured. They chose the side of Melkor of their own will, and they were corrupted by evility of their master and their own wickedness. They were not tortured. They were servants of Morgoth of their own free will.

[Sister Golden Hair]

So, they were actually never good. Correct?

[FrodoFriend]

No, they were good to start with. They're like fallen angels. When Eru created them they were good, but they quickly went over to Morgoth, for whatever reasons.

[Bregalad]

Tortured Maiar? No, I don't think so. And here I go running to my Tolkien Companion again:

Balrog-an evil spirit of great age, a monstrous survivor from the war of the Great Jewels in the first age. The origins of balrogs are unclear, but they are likely to have been dark spirits from Udun (hell) summoned by Morgoth to aid him in the wars of the first age.

[markedel]

Balrogs were originally fire spirits. They must have been good for the simple reason that Melkor was once good.

[Lightice]

I never saw good in Middle Earth...
Only evil and neutrality...Even Valar weren't completely pure, and Eru was in control of everything, and at least I don't see it as too good thing...
Oh well, just my opinion...

[emplynx]

The Silmarillion makes pretty clear that the Balrog's were Maia who chose to fight with Melkor (Morgoth).

[Ñólendil]

That Tolkien Companion isn't the best source. The origin of the Balrogs is clear, quite clear. As several have said here they were a group of Maiar (a very small group) who Fell and joined themselves to the people of Melkor.

[Bregalad]

Look, maybe the Companion isn't the best source, but I still think anyone who thinks Balrog is related to the Valar is confused. From the index/glossary of the Simarillian itself, it says the balrog is a Valaraukar, don't let the simarility of names confuse you into thinking that means they are a type of Valar. The Simarillion says Valaraukar means "Deamons of Might" while Valar are "Those with Power." Nor is it related to Maiar. Pg 31 of the simarillian states

For of the Maiar, many were drawn to his spleandor in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegience down into his darkness; and OTHERS he corupted afterward to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these (other) spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in the Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, deamons of terror.

He didn't corrupt Valar into the Balrogs, he corupted the Balrogs themselves with gifts and lies. Not that they were nice to begin with, but he won them to his cause. Now there are many people that interpret that quote above to mean that the Valaraukar were indeed Maiar. I am just saying that personnaly I do not agree with that intepretation. That there little semi-colon means gramatically that the writer has moved on to a separate but related topic. And even if you want to argue that Maiar and Valaraukar were all some sort of fire-spirit back then, I can find nothing to back up that he phisically changed them into their black, firery tailed selves. They were already like that. He didn't corrupt them phisically, he corrupted their hearts to his cause. Corrupt doesn't just mean "to degenerrate" it also means "to bribe" and that bit about the treacherous gifts says bribery to me.
I'm not saying my opinion is the only one. I'm just saying I cannot find any facts to back up the theory that Balrogs were nice little beasties until Melkor got ahold of them.

[FrodoFriend]

They had to be nice to begin with, because everything was nice to begin with. Melkor was the first to go bad, and he corrupted Maiar, who became Balrogs. The "other spirits" in that quote refers to "other Maiar" who were corrupted later as opposed to the ones who gave him allegiance while he was still in his "days of greatness." A few out of this whole group became Balrogs.

[Ñólendil]

He didn't corrupt Valar into the Balrogs, he corupted the Balrogs themselves with gifts and lies.

If you are sort of addressing me, you may have read my post wrong. I never said the Balrogs were at one time Valar (though they are related). There are only 15 Valar counting Melkor. The Balrogs were however at one time (before their corruption) Maiar. And for lack of a better term that is well known (one could use Rauko), a Balrog is often called a Maia.

Now there are many people that interpret that quote above to mean that the Valaraukar were indeed Maiar. I am just saying that personnaly I do not agree with that intepretation.

Hmmm. Well, you are right and you are wrong, at the same time. The Balrogs were corrupted Maiar, that's a fact. 'Maiar' means 'the Beautiful', so it's not very appropriate for fiery demons, but the Balrogs were of the same Order as all the other Ainur, that's a fact.

I can find nothing to back up that he phisically changed them into their black, firery tailed selves. They were already like that.

I should like to know if you can find anything to back up fiery tails. But they were not 'already like that'. The Ainur had no true, definite, visable forms. Their forms were expressions of their personalities, desires and functions. After the Balrogs became evil, they looked evil. Sauron was better at concealing himself when he wanted to before the Fall of Númenor. Think of Morgoth. When he first took shape it was as a great mountain that wades in the water, cloaked in ice and crowned with lightning and smoke, with eyes of fire. I agree that the Balrogs were always spirits of fire. But I think at one time they were spirits of fire and light, rather than darkness. Like Arien. There's a quote in the Silmarillion about her that makes it sound as though she's an example of an uncorrupted fiery spirit, a Balrog in her primitive and pure state, you might say.

I'm not saying my opinion is the only one. I'm just saying I cannot find any facts to back up the theory that Balrogs were nice little beasties until Melkor got ahold of them.

What about the fact that Eru created them, as FrodoFriend said?

[Wayfarer]

For of the Maiar, many were drawn to his spleandor in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegience down into his darkness; and OTHERS he corupted afterward to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these (other) spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in the Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, deamons of terror.

Originally posted by Bregalad
Look, maybe the Companion isn't the best source, but I still think anyone who thinks Balrog is related to the Valar is confused.

*Ahem* The Balrogs are as related to the Valar as any of the Maia. They were spirits of the same kind but of lesser power.

Originally posted by Bregalad
Valaraukar were indeed Maiar. I am just saying that personnaly I do not agree with that intepretation. That there little semi-colon means gramatically that the writer has moved on to a separate but related topic

Let us examine this:

For of the Maiar, many were drawn to his spleandor in the days of his greatness, and remained in that allegience down into his darkness; and OTHERS he corupted afterward to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. Dreadful among these (other) spirits were the Valaraukar, the scourges of fire that in the Middle-earth were called the Balrogs, deamons of terror.

"Many were drawn to his spleandor in the days of his greatness"

Many of whom? Many of the Maiar.

"Others he corupted afterward to his service with lies and treacherous gifts. "

Others of Whom? Others of the Maiar.

"Dreadful among these spirits were the Valaraukar"

Dreadful among which spirits? The Maiar.

Notice that tolkien says 'these spirits'. The only spirits mentioned so far are what? The Maiar.

Ok. We've established that you're wrong in that. Get over it.

I find this statement quite interesting:

I'm just saying I cannot find any facts to back up the theory that Balrogs were nice little beasties until Melkor got ahold of them.

I shall quote for you: "Even sauron was not in the beginning evil."

Tolkien's stance is fairly obvious, ad I don't see how many people can miss it. Evil cannot create, because evil, in and of itself, is nothing. It can only corrupt, and thus all evil was at one time good. This goes for Morgoth, Sauron, and The Balrogs.

Furthermore:

From the index/glossary of the Simarillian itself, it says the balrog is a Valaraukar, don't let the simarility of names confuse you into thinking that means they are a type of Valar.

In all my time on the net, most of which has been dedicated to tolkien related marteriel, I have never, ever, seen someone make the mistake of labeling the Balrog's as Valar. Until now. Congratulations. You've just demonstrated that you have no concept of the idea you're trying to disprove.

Let me lay it out for you:

There are the Ainur. These are spirits that were created by Eru before the creation of Arda, and participated in the Auledale.

Of the Ainur, many chose to enter Arda. Of those, the fifteen greatest became the Valar. 'Those with Power'. The others were called Maiar 'The Beautiful'.

Melkor, the greatest of the Valar, rebelled against Eru. Because of this, he forfeited his right to be numbered among the Valar, and was called Morgoth: the Dark Enemy (or the Black Devil).

Those Maiar that served him and followed him became demons. Raukar. Of these, seven of the greatest became known as the Valaraukar 'The demons of Power'.

[Bregalad]

I have said before and I will say again that I was expressing an opinion, not facts. And it is more a semantic argument I was making, rather than a religious/philosophical one. I am very aware that I do not know the Simarillion as well as others here, and I do not pretend to. I still don't see that the beginning was all picket fences and happy dogs, however. that is what confuses me. Even in the very beginning, in the Ainulindale, when the Valar first walk the earth it says, "and that the earth was becoming as a garden for their delight, for it's turmoils were subdued" It doesn't say it was utopia, it says it has subdued turmoil, not blissful perfection, and that was before Melkor also took visible form. In my opinion, and may I stress that once again it is but a little opinion, not something to get all worked up about, there is no turmoil in a world that doesn't already have good and bad things in it. Good-vs-bad=turmoil.

[Bregalad]

Oh, and as for the firey tailed, I wasn't trying to prove some point that balrogs have firey tails, that's just how I see them in my head. Somewhere in the Sim they are described as having firey heads or something like that, and in FOTR the balrog is described as "dripping with fire" and the balrog that plays in the movie in my head has a tail. I guess I assume all deamon thingies have tails. If ya don't like it, don't watch movies in my head!

[markedel]

Well Arda (and Ea) was not created until after Melkor's rebellion. So by then there were problems.

Maiar can assume forms at will most of the time.

[Wayfarer]

Somewhere in the Sim they are described as having firey heads or something like that, and in FOTR the balrog is described as "dripping with fire"

NO and NO

[Wayfarer]

I have said before and I will say again that I was expressing an opinion, not facts.

Yes. That's very nice. Your problem is that you seem to think opinion which contradicts fact is still valid in argument. If your opinion is wrong (as it is in this case) you should either change it or keep silent. Attempting to argue the point, or worse, claiming that your errant opinion is as valid as contridictory facts, is not going to help.

And it is more a semantic argument I was making, rather than a religious/philosophical one.

So, either you think of Tolkien as a Religion, or you assume some of us do? That's odd. In fact this argument is neither semantic or philosophical, but evidential. My pointing this out is semantic. ]

Even in the very beginning, in the Ainulindale, when the Valar first walk the earth it says, "and that the earth was becoming as a garden for their delight, for it's turmoils were subdued" It doesn't say it was utopia, it says it has subdued turmoil, not blissful perfection, and that was before Melkor also took visible form. In my opinion, and may I stress that once again it is but a little opinion, not something to get all worked up about, there is no turmoil in a world that doesn't already have good and bad things in it. Good-vs-bad=turmoil.

Evil began with the corruption of Melkor. During the Aulindale, he chose to weave into the theme those things that were not from Illuvater, but of his own devising. Heat and Cold, for instance. because of this arda was marred before it was made. That should clear it up for you.

[Tanoliel]

Hmmm....I don't know about this Iluvatar guy... Okay. I'm sure he was wonderful. And I'm not trying to stir up another pot of worms (am I mixing metaphors here? Oh well), but this is always the thing that bugs me about religions with a huge, supreme wonderful perfect diety. So everything Iluvatar did was good? (I think Lightice said something about this...) And Melkor, okay, admittedly he got all greedy and nasty and whatnot, but--and I don't remember this part in the Sil very well--was it just that he was trying to bring in some melodies of his own? Sure, he could've ASKED...or, you know, improvised in a better setting...or something...but if he was..oh, YARGH. Here I am getting into an argument with myself. Sorry. I'm just trying to make a point...
-tano
ps. sorry if I sound all snotty or something...I'm just once again in the process of confusing myself. I do this daily. *sigh*