Thread: Why could the Dwarves not defeat Durin's Bane?

Originally Posted by Curandhras

There is reason for a contradiction to exist, certainly, in that it requires a lot of awkward "ifs" and "maybes" to "resolve" without Tolkien's outside input.

A contradiction does exist as a result of a continuity change. We have that on good authority, and you can't resolve legacy contradictions like that.

The defeat of Gothmog by Ecthelion, to me at least, is similar to the defeat of the WK by Merry and Eowyn. It isn't something that the natural "power scale" if you will predicts, yet it happened anyway.

You're being arbitrary there. There is no one natural 'power scale', thanks to Tolkien changing his mind about Balrogs.

I think there is certainly something significant about the extinguishing of Gothmog in Ecthelion's Fountain. It was the fountain of his people, whether or not it had some inherent enchanted properties or whether it was down to Ecthelion's presence and sacrifice in plunging Gothmog into the water, I think the fountain goes significantly more a distance to extingusing the spirit of a Balrog, rather than it's literal flame (as opposed to a "random" pool of water in a mountain range which succeeds in only the latter).

Oh, so it's magic water that kills fallen Maiar. That explains everything...

Tolkien said nothing even close to that. In the original TFoG he simply said the Balrog drowned, having been impaled by the spike on Ecthelion's helmet and then drowned as the two of them toppled together into the basin of the fountain. Sorry, but I can't see that working with LOTR's bigger, badder sort of Balrog (and a similarly bigger, badder Gothmog, revised in the same manner, would if anything be a more terrible foe than Durin's Bane).

I don't think there is a concrete (although certainly strongly implied, I'm not denying that) reason why a FA Balrog could not do what Durin's Bane did.

In TFoG, any number of Balrogs were killed (thirteen in one encounter alone, nearly double the number that Tolkien eventually decided had ever existed!). Tuor killed quite a few of them himself. Now compare that with one, single solitary Balrog that takes a fellow Maia some eight days to slay in a running battle. A city full of heavily-armed Dwarves should have been able to cope with one of TFoG's Balrogs, since as originally conceived that 'wimpy' sort of Balrog could evidently be felled by mortals; making DB so tough they couldn't deal with it wasn't a small change to the concept of Balrogs, it was a huge one. It's also why the number of Balrogs tumbled from there having been umpteen of them down to just a few.

Gandalf fought the Balrog in largely physical combat

Not so, there was evidently a magical struggle going on as well because there's mention of lightning and fire; the struggle was so violent that the stout Dwarf-built tower atop the peak was reduced to scorched and broken rubble.

I think an epic fight for days atop a mountain-peak is very much a set piece affair, given that Gandalf sacrificed himself in order to destroy DB. The only thing that's changed is how long it takes to play out, corresponding to how deadly Balrogs had become in Tolkien's re-imagined version.

I realise it's a stretch for a FA Balrog to push someone of Gandalf's abilities that far, but his prowess in combat was probably not a match for Glorfindel, Ecthelion, Feanor etc.

Not credible, since Balrogs were terrors in close combat; that was their intended role, as Morgoth's shock troops. Gandalf could hardly have stood against it for so much as five minutes, let alone eight days, if he wasn't very handy with a sword. Remember, as a Maia he'd been around in one form or another since the creation of the world. He didn't show his true power normally because he was not supposed to show off, as that would have made people want to take him as their leader rather than merely take his advice. Alone with just the Balrog for company, he could really let rip.

A Balrog of DB's stature could, I think, have been dispatched by Feanor (if there was only one) in his whirlwind of fury, but certainly one of Gothmog's stature could administer a wound that would eventually kill him.

In the Sil, there's no mention of Feanor killing even so much as one Balrog, just that he fought heroically against them until Gothmog felled him. I don't know where this apparent hero-worship of Feanor comes from; he'd turned fey, i.e. he wanted to die and that was why he went charging off ahead of his army and got himself killed.

1)In open, even combat Gandalf (the Grey) would not be markedly more potent (although certainly he would be more) than a powerful Elf of the earlier ages. This is not to say that any Elf could last so long or go through so much in combat with a Balrog, or even hold off the Nazgul all night long. Gandalf had many other talents that served to very well prepare him against the talents of his enemies (insofar as resistance to terror, intimidation etc goes). In pure martial skill though, I don't think it is infeasible to suggest that Gandalf was not a "sword master".

The fight with DB was plainly a matter of attrition as they were plainly very evenly matched. Against that bigger, badder Balrog an Elf would inevitably fall first. (Remember, it took a team effort to take down Sauron in the final battle of the War of the Last Alliance, and for every named character who fell you can bet there were a whole bunch of spear-carrier types who perished too - and Sauron was more brains than brawn, the sorcerer type, not as given to kicking butt as the Balrogs were).

As I said earlier, this difficulty about the reconsidered Balrogs being overpowered might well be the explanation for why Tolkien never finished a rewrite of TFoG. I think he'd painted himself into a corner by making DB so powerful.

2)There are tiers of power within the Balrog ranks, from grunt footsoldier all the way up to powerhouse "elite masters...ugh" I don't think this is too tall an order either, within any caste there are more powerful members, be it in skill or raw power.

That would suit the original conception of Balrogs far better than the reconsidered ones, as the latter were all Maiar and Tolkien only imagined there having ever been a small number of them (i.e. no 'ranks', they'd all have been terrifyingly powerful, thus making up for their limited numbers by sheer brute force).

4)DB was a powerful Balrog, one that would in 1-1 combat required something special from any opponent, Elf or Maia to defeat. More powerful than the "army" memebers, not as powerful as the "lieutenant".

Again, the reconsideration of the Balrogs meant there was no longer an 'army' of them.

They are all stretches to lesser or greater extents. I accept that. However if those things are assumed, then I think a Balrog who took Gandalf so far in a fight could also be killed by a much "weaker" foe given an unexpected turn of events. Had Tolkien not written that Merry and Eowyn defeated the WK, and the thread "Who would win between the WK and Merry and Eowyn" was opened, an argument for the victory of Merry and Eowyn would require such assumptions as:
1)The WK does not instantly kill Eowyn, instead taunting her(/him as durnhelm)
2)The WK chooses to ignore, or does not notice Merry behind him, considers it not an issue perhaps?
3)Merry -a Hobbit from the Shire- is in possession of an ancient blade with the power to break the WK's Morgul protection

The WiKi was just an undead Man, and vulnerable if the sorcery that protected him were to fail. You're making a false comparison, there: once reconsidered as evil Maiar, Balrogs could be thought of as fallen angels (with fiery swords, no less) and put in those terms, nobody would expect anything like that to be something that could be killed by any normal means. By contrast, the Witch-king could be quickly killed once Merry's blow broke the spells that kept him from harm, that shattered any weapon that pierced him. There was no such 'magic bullet' for dealing with DB.

He did not, I'm not trying to change what he wrote.

Perhaps not, but you do seem to be underestimating the magnitude of the change from having umpteen Balrogs which could be swiftly killed by Elf-lords or heroic Edain to there only having ever been a few of them and each one being hideously powerful and nightmarishly hard to destroy. You can't fix Tolkien's inconsistencies with a bit of legerdemain - I've seen a lot of people try this sort of argument, because they'd prefer if it was all neat and tidy and that seems to serve some need they have. I'm sorry, but the reality is it's just plain messy.

Also, a Balrog is a very intelligent creature. Compound that with the fact that he was a "Bad Mo' Fo", and you have a really tough tactical situation to beat.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

You're being arbitrary there. There is no one natural 'power scale', thanks to Tolkien changing his mind about Balrogs.

Gothmog was more powerful than the other Balrogs, always. I'm only extending that to assume that within other Balrogs there were also weaker and stronger ones.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Oh, so it's magic water that kills fallen Maiar. That explains everything...

Tolkien said nothing even close to that. In the original TFoG he simply said the Balrog drowned, having been impaled by the spike on Ecthelion's helmet and then drowned as the two of them toppled together into the basin of the fountain. Sorry, but I can't see that working with LOTR's bigger, badder sort of Balrog (and a similarly bigger, badder Gothmog, revised in the same manner, would if anything be a more terrible foe than Durin's Bane).

Ecthelion drowned, the Silmarillion I have here says that the waters of the fountain quench Gothmog's flame, not drown him. That to me is ambiguous and certainly more akin to breaking the magic and spirit keeping him "alive" than simply "drowning him".

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

In TFoG, any number of Balrogs were killed (thirteen in one encounter alone, nearly double the number that Tolkien eventually decided had ever existed!). Tuor killed quite a few of them himself. Now compare that with one, single solitary Balrog that takes a fellow Maia some eight days to slay in a running battle.

These run of the mill Balrogs that were killed would have to be the "lesser" ones in this arbitrary power scale. The Moria Balrog I contend would be more powerful than these. This is the hang up, since Gothmog would then be more powerful again than DB (as you've said) which is why my "magic spirit quenching water" argument is needed.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Not credible, since Balrogs were terrors in close combat; that was their intended role, as Morgoth's shock troops. Gandalf could hardly have stood against it for so much as five minutes, let alone eight days, if he wasn't very handy with a sword. Remember, as a Maia he'd been around in one form or another since the creation of the world. He didn't show his true power normally because he was not supposed to show off, as that would have made people want to take him as their leader rather than merely take his advice. Alone with just the Balrog for company, he could really let rip.

He wasn't permitted to unleash fully in ME in his guise as Gandalf the Grey. I am not saying that he was not a powerful force in combat, just that his skill purely as a warrior may not have been as finely tuned as some of the Elves of "yore". Gandalf's "magic" power would be going head to head with the Balrog's own "magic", which it's safe to assume he is more than a match for. His actual physical prowess may not have been that of the Elves or a Balrog. (Note here that I'm not viewing Gandalf as an "old man" or Sir Ian Mckellen when I talk about his skills in battle) Sauron, for example, was immensely powerful but repeatedly found out in battle with "lesser" beings. Again, not that Gandalf was "found out" in such a way, he was wiser and far less arrogant than Sauron, probably fought in a much more conservative and considered manner. I'm just making the difference between power and skill with a blade clear.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

In the Sil, there's no mention of Feanor killing even so much as one Balrog, just that he fought heroically against them until Gothmog felled him.

It's heavily implied though, you don't fight heroically against a hoard of them only to fall after the battle to a wound sustained from the most powerful of them without killing a few during the battle.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

The fight with DB was plainly a matter of attrition as they were plainly very evenly matched. Against that bigger, badder Balrog an Elf would inevitably fall first. (Remember, it took a team effort to take down Sauron in the final battle of the War of the Last Alliance, and for every named character who fell you can bet there were a whole bunch of spear-carrier types who perished too - and Sauron was more brains than brawn, the sorcerer type, not as given to kicking butt as the Balrogs were).

Again the bigger badder Balrog vs Elf I agree with. The run of the mill combat would have to be between Balrogs as Tolkien originally intended them. If there were a few "super Balrogs" like DB around in the FA though, I don't think that's unreasonable. They'd have been horrendous in combat, I fully agree, but the team effort you talk about vs Sauron could be copy and pasted, only using Elves of greater skill. I accept that if Melkor did have a few of these "Super Balrogs" then they'd be used to greater effect and so clearly mentioned in Tolkien's works, but you have to imagine that some of these colossal Balrogs might have been slain "behind the scenes". Or maybe not, maybe they rampaged across the battlefield killing indiscriminately, but never in key locations or with key characters involved.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

As I said earlier, this difficulty about the reconsidered Balrogs being overpowered might well be the explanation for why Tolkien never finished a rewrite of TFoG. I think he'd painted himself into a corner by making DB so powerful.

I completely agree. I'm only trying to explain how, in my view, with heavy pinches of salt it can be crowbar'd in, if you will, to make some kind of sense. DB survived (albeit hidden underground) for ages after Melkor was thrown down by the other Valar and his forces destroyed (mostly). Again I know that the definition has changed, but had it not, then surely his survival alone points to some greater strength or wisdom than other (lesser?) Balrogs? Or maybe he was just in the right place at the right time, of course.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

That would suit the original conception of Balrogs far better than the reconsidered ones, as the latter were all Maiar and Tolkien only imagined there having ever been a small number of them (i.e. no 'ranks', they'd all have been terrifyingly powerful, thus making up for their limited numbers by sheer brute force).

My discussion does centre around the older conception being the "canon" one, and somehow trying to rationalise away DB's immense power in LotR, rather than taking the newer "Maia" Balrog and trying to cram legions of them into the HoME stories. Like I've said the major hangup (implying it's the only major hangup..) is Ecthelion's defeat of Gothmog.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Again, the reconsideration of the Balrogs meant there was no longer an 'army' of them.

There was an army of them in the Silmarillion though, or at least far more than 7.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

The WiKi was just an undead Man, and vulnerable if the sorcery that protected him were to fail. You're making a false comparison, there: once reconsidered as evil Maiar, Balrogs could be thought of as fallen angels (with fiery swords, no less) and put in those terms, nobody would expect anything like that to be something that could be killed by any normal means. By contrast, the Witch-king could be quickly killed once Merry's blow broke the spells that kept him from harm, that shattered any weapon that pierced him. There was no such 'magic bullet' for dealing with DB.

The comparison here was of a Hobbit being able to kill Sauron's most powerful servant next to and Elf being able to kill a Balrog of immense power. The WK was not killable by normal means. You're papering over the unlikelihood of Merry actually having a weapon that is able to break his spell. With the greatest of repect to JRRT it's a deus ex to kill the WK in this way. It's a very well crafted and intertwined one, but at the end of the day a Hobbit and a girl just out of puberty kill one of the most deadly foes around.

I know Gothmog would be orders of magnitude more powerful than the WK, orders of magnitude on a different scale too. The magic bullet here has to be Ecthelion's head-stab-fountain-quench manoeuvre again. He could not beat the Balrog in standard combat, and luckily for him the waters of the fountain extinguished the Balrog's spirit. This is equivalent to Merry's blade in the comparison, there is no way that without either blade or fountain either of these battles would be won.

Again this relies rather heavily on the lynch pin of "magic water". If that interpretation of the Sil's words doesn't hold for you then fair enough.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Perhaps not, but you do seem to be underestimating the magnitude of the change from having umpteen Balrogs which could be swiftly killed by Elf-lords or heroic Edain to there only having ever been a few of them and each one being hideously powerful and nightmarishly hard to destroy. You can't fix Tolkien's inconsistencies with a bit of legerdemain - I've seen a lot of people try this sort of argument, because they'd prefer if it was all neat and tidy and that seems to serve some need they have. I'm sorry, but the reality is it's just plain messy.

Rather overestimating my own "interpretations" and the effect they would have, than underestimating Tolkien's change. I do completely accept that the recalibration of the Balrog is a colossal shift and messes with every aspect of story they're involved with in some way or another.

I'm aiming for a mix, really, of umpteen Balrogs which could be swiftly (albeit requiring a modicum of skill, bravery and caution) killed and also a smattering of hideously powerful ones that you'd have to assume, for whatever reason, don't do anything of note and so aren't mentioned....

I am not trying to propose that how I am choosing to view and interpret the texts is the correct way. Clearly in many cases I've taken meanings and implications almost certainly not intended by Tolkien (although I still think "quenched" is siginificant, however powerful Gothmog was in relation to Ecthelion, DB or anyone else). All I am proposing is that it is not impossible to take these implications, and in that, it is not impossible for DB and FA Balrogs to occupy a continuous spectrum of power.

Perhaps this discussion would have been better suited to a thread entitled "Let's have a go at wrangling the story to fit DB into the FA lore". The context of this thread was possibly too "serious" (or at least in demand of a concrete answer) for my thoughts. Although in fairness the OP's question was answered pretty concisely within a few posts so I hope (s)he won't begrudge me derailing the thread as much as I now realise I have done.

Originally Posted by Curandhras

Gothmog was more powerful than the other Balrogs, always. I'm only extending that to assume that within other Balrogs there were also weaker and stronger ones.

As reconsidered, there were only ever a few Balrogs and so I doubt the intention was that any of them were particularly 'weak', more that Gothmog was particularly strong.

Ecthelion drowned, the Silmarillion I have here says that the waters of the fountain quench Gothmog's flame, not drown him. That to me is ambiguous and certainly more akin to breaking the magic and spirit keeping him "alive" than simply "drowning him".

Having just checked, the Sil says nothing of the sort: it just says that Ecthelion and Gothmog slew each other. As for the Fountain, as it's pointed out in TFoG that the basin was very deep then the implication is drowning in deep water. It says nothing there either about Gothmog's flame being quenched.

These run of the mill Balrogs that were killed would have to be the "lesser" ones in this arbitrary power scale. The Moria Balrog I contend would be more powerful than these. This is the hang up, since Gothmog would then be more powerful again than DB (as you've said) which is why my "magic spirit quenching water" argument is needed.

That's an invention, not an argument.

He wasn't permitted to unleash fully in ME in his guise as Gandalf the Grey.

Not to my understanding. What was said was that the Istari were not permitted to make open displays of power, and indeed we can see that he avoids doing that - except when fighting the Ring-wraiths at Weathertop, and again when fighting the Balrog, because there was no-one else to see. The 'rule' was there, as it's said, so that the Istari couldn't seek to sway people into following them by showing off their power.

I am not saying that he was not a powerful force in combat, just that his skill purely as a warrior may not have been as finely tuned as some of the Elves of "yore". Gandalf's "magic" power would be going head to head with the Balrog's own "magic", which it's safe to assume he is more than a match for. His actual physical prowess may not have been that of the Elves or a Balrog. (Note here that I'm not viewing Gandalf as an "old man" or Sir Ian Mckellen when I talk about his skills in battle) Sauron, for example, was immensely powerful but repeatedly found out in battle with "lesser" beings. Again, not that Gandalf was "found out" in such a way, he was wiser and far less arrogant than Sauron, probably fought in a much more conservative and considered manner. I'm just making the difference between power and skill with a blade clear.

Olorin had been around since the dawn of time, far longer than any Elf, so why assume he's less skilled than them? If he wasn't every bit as deadly with a sword as any Elf-lord you care to name then the Balrog would have slain him. He and DB were evidently very closely matched in both physical and magical terms. (Don't forget what's said about his first confrontation with DB, through that door at the Chamber of Mazarbul - the counterspell DB used nearly destroyed Gandalf).

It's heavily implied though, you don't fight heroically against a hoard of them only to fall after the battle to a wound sustained from the most powerful of them without killing a few during the battle.

No, it's not 'heavily implied' at all. Oh, I'm sure he'd have hurt some of them but if any were meant to have fallen then why would Tolkien not come right out and say so?

Again the bigger badder Balrog vs Elf I agree with. The run of the mill combat would have to be between Balrogs as Tolkien originally intended them. If there were a few "super Balrogs" like DB around in the FA though, I don't think that's unreasonable. They'd have been horrendous in combat, I fully agree, but the team effort you talk about vs Sauron could be copy and pasted, only using Elves of greater skill. I accept that if Melkor did have a few of these "Super Balrogs" then they'd be used to greater effect and so clearly mentioned in Tolkien's works, but you have to imagine that some of these colossal Balrogs might have been slain "behind the scenes". Or maybe not, maybe they rampaged across the battlefield killing indiscriminately, but never in key locations or with key characters involved.

Sorry but in reconsidering the Balrogs as powerful Maiar, LOTR-style, the implication for the Sil would be that there were never any 'Balrogs as Tolkien originally intended them', but only the few 'super' ones like DB. Tolkien didn't retcon the Sil to match.

I completely agree. I'm only trying to explain how, in my view, with heavy pinches of salt it can be crowbar'd in, if you will, to make some kind of sense. DB survived (albeit hidden underground) for ages after Melkor was thrown down by the other Valar and his forces destroyed (mostly). Again I know that the definition has changed, but had it not, then surely his survival alone points to some greater strength or wisdom than other (lesser?) Balrogs? Or maybe he was just in the right place at the right time, of course.

Or blind luck, or simply having run sooner than the rest.

My discussion does centre around the older conception being the "canon" one, and somehow trying to rationalise away DB's immense power in LotR, rather than taking the newer "Maia" Balrog and trying to cram legions of them into the HoME stories. Like I've said the major hangup (implying it's the only major hangup..) is Ecthelion's defeat of Gothmog.

Not only that, if you read TFoG. There were dead Balrogs all over the place in that, as I mentioned earlier, including the one Glorfindel fought.

There was an army of them in the Silmarillion though, or at least far more than 7.

Yes, but that's because Tolkien didn't change the Sil to match, leading to a substantial break of continuity between it and LOTR.

The comparison here was of a Hobbit being able to kill Sauron's most powerful servant next to and Elf being able to kill a Balrog of immense power. The WK was not killable by normal means. You're papering over the unlikelihood of Merry actually having a weapon that is able to break his spell. With the greatest of repect to JRRT it's a deus ex to kill the WK in this way. It's a very well crafted and intertwined one, but at the end of the day a Hobbit and a girl just out of puberty kill one of the most deadly foes around.

The WiKi was unkillable by normal means so long as the sorcery that protected him remained in place. Yes, Merry's blade was a plot device to undo that and leave him vulnerable (and to cripple his leg in the process), at which point any warrior doughty enough to face the WiKi could potentially destroy him. Fate simply had Eowyn in mind.

I know Gothmog would be orders of magnitude more powerful than the WK, orders of magnitude on a different scale too. The magic bullet here has to be Ecthelion's head-stab-fountain-quench manoeuvre again. He could not beat the Balrog in standard combat, and luckily for him the waters of the fountain extinguished the Balrog's spirit. This is equivalent to Merry's blade in the comparison, there is no way that without either blade or fountain either of these battles would be won.

See earlier: I couldn't find mention of this 'quenching' you refer to.

Again this relies rather heavily on the lynch pin of "magic water". If that interpretation of the Sil's words doesn't hold for you then fair enough.

Again, the Sil doesn't appear to even mention what you say it does.

Rather overestimating my own "interpretations" and the effect they would have, than underestimating Tolkien's change. I do completely accept that the recalibration of the Balrog is a colossal shift and messes with every aspect of story they're involved with in some way or another.

I'm aiming for a mix, really, of umpteen Balrogs which could be swiftly (albeit requiring a modicum of skill, bravery and caution) killed and also a smattering of hideously powerful ones that you'd have to assume, for whatever reason, don't do anything of note and so aren't mentioned....

That's the contrivance I was referring to earlier, and besides you're arguing with the author there: it was EITHER the original umpteen relatively wimpy Balrogs OR a few extremely powerful ones, not a mixture of both. That mixture would create multiple plot holes, too - it's just not good enough to make that assumption you have there.

I have a version of the Sil here adorned with various extras and notes by CT (and others, I think) and on flicking through it, it does appear to be longer and more "fleshed" out than the standard copies, of which I don't have any with me at the moment. It does appear to contain things from UT, HoME and various letters that aren't in the standard versions although without reference I can't remember which parts are which. This version is probably not considered canon.. It goes over the loss of Ecthelions sword and shield, him jumping onto Gothmog, grappling with him, stabbing him in the chest with his helmet spike and then them both falling into the fountain still entangled whereby Ecthelion "drowns" and "[Gothmog's] flame was quenched by the waters of the fountain" and they both die. On reflection I do think the other Sil's I have are much briefer than this, I don't have any here though as I say.

That aside, and all my other "assumptions". You are arguing against the validity of the assumptions which I have already accepted to be shaky at best. You are ignoring my points regarding the frequency with which Tolkien invented similar unlikely scenarios when he noticed inconsistencies - albeit ones less (obviously) integral to the story than this. I have already accepted (a few posts back) that you do not agree with these:

Originally Posted by Me

I have no problem with you disagreeing with the limit to which you can "assume" within his works. I have argued my "case" inconsistently, as you say, since while I obviously want to promote the merits of this approach to inconsistencies that I, and others, enjoy taking, I accept that the outcomes are highly subjective. So once again I do not mind if you disagree with the stretches and "warps" I have suggested to paper over the cracks of the Balrog. I would mind (or at least would be compelled to argue further) if you were to discount this approach entirely. Not in this specific case, since some of the contrivances are very severe, but in general I think the use of imagination to flesh out and "correct" things authors leave undone is part and parcel of reading a work such as this. To stick exactly to what is written (however contradictory or unlikely) and use only "hard facts" as proclaimed by the author, I think misses a whole level of discussion, debate and really "fun" of such a deep work of fiction.

Of course I will continue to argue, if pressed, that given the collection of assumptions I have listed that it is possible (however unlikely - yes, very unlikely) that Db could have been around in a similar state of being in LotR and earlier works. It is a clumsy workaround to overcome the change made by Tolkien. If Tolkien had engineered his own workaround that would have been lovely, and since he had the means to rewrite and reconsider things it probably would have been a lot neater. He probably couldn't be bothered though since it'd involve changing so much. You said a few posts back:

Originally Posted by You

I've seen a lot of people try this sort of argument, because they'd prefer if it was all neat and tidy and that seems to serve some need they have. I'm sorry, but the reality is it's just plain messy.

I'd prefer it yes, for immersion and storytelling purposes it's nice when everything matches up. It's not a need, though, I accept that the reality is messy and can still enjoy the works in their "factual" sense when it is accepted that Balrogs in the earlier times are not what Gandalf fought in and over K-D. The reality is messy, as you say. I'm still not sure if its this specific case you're arguing against (which I've already said multiple times that I accept is highly subjective) or against that you should ever try to do this kind of thing at all.

Personally I rather fit the Maiar-Balrog theory into The Silmarillion rather than create some hybrid of the two schools of thought. Although The Silmarillion does imply more Balrogs than seven the talk of 'hosts' and 'legions' of Balrogs found in some parts of HoME has been removed. In most (perhaps all) cases of The Silmarillion the text doesn't seem to discount the 'at most seven' idea.

As for how the likes of Glorfindel and Ecthelion could slay a Balrog like Durin's Bane, I don't think enough credit is given to those elves. They were pretty legendary among a group of elves considered legendary in their own right. Personally I imagine these characters to be quite a bit more combat-handy than Gandalf, even though he has greater power in other areas. Would Tolkien have made it such a slam-dunk affair if he re-wrote The Silmarillion with the Durin's Bane vs Gandalf battle in mind? Probably not. But that's a hell of a smaller chasm to bridge than trying to imagine both armies of 'lesser Balrogs' and a few 'uber Balrogs'.

Really don't see what the fuss is about.

One more reason why the Dwarves might have been defeated. Loss of easy mithril. It was the basis of Moria's wealth and the good stuff was 'down-there' with you-know-who.... Dwarves do not increase in number quickly so a safe refuge is necessary for them. A war of attrition is not a good battle plan for them.

Playing rock paper scissors, if Azaghal (a prince) could drive Glarung the father of dragons from the field then I dont see why two Kings of Durins house failed. If Bard a mortal archer could slay the last royal firedrake with one shot then surely Legolas should have at least winged the Balrog. Why werent Durin VI and Nain wearing their ring of power when they took on the Balrog?, if the axe of Durin was lost in the fight, then whey wasnt the ring lost?, why wasnt Dain I wearing the ring when he was eaten by a cold drake?, if the ring wasnt the edge these kings needed to at least equal the feats of Azaghal then what was the use of it?.

Originally Posted by Morthaur

Playing rock paper scissors, if Azaghal (a prince) could drive Glarung the father of dragons from the field then I dont see why two Kings of Durins house failed.

Dragons had a weak spot - it was being knifed in the belly by the dying Azaghal that finally drove Glaurung from the field, although the extensive battering he'd received from the 'great axes' of the Dwarves had been more than an inconvenience because his armour couldn't entirely fend off such fierce blows. Same went with Smaug, Bard shot him in the weak spot that Bilbo had noticed earlier. (Oh, and in the end Glaurung was mortally wounded by Turin, who lay in wait for him at Cabed-en-Aras and shoved his sword up into the dragon's belly as he crawled past).

Balrogs were considered worse than dragons (by the Elves, at least). I doubt they had any convenient weak spots. Arrows might not have been able to hurt them at all.

Why werent Durin VI and Nain wearing their ring of power when they took on the Balrog?, if the axe of Durin was lost in the fight, then whey wasnt the ring lost?, why wasnt Dain I wearing the ring when he was eaten by a cold drake?, if the ring wasnt the edge these kings needed to at least equal the feats of Azaghal then what was the use of it?.

The Rings of the Dwarves apparently had something to do with gold (that if you had some gold already, then having one of those Rings would somehow help you make more). Maybe not something you'd necessarily wear into battle, then.

Originally Posted by Morthaur

Playing rock paper scissors, if Azaghal (a prince) could drive Glarung the father of dragons from the field then I dont see why two Kings of Durins house failed. If Bard a mortal archer could slay the last royal firedrake with one shot then surely Legolas should have at least winged the Balrog. Why werent Durin VI and Nain wearing their ring of power when they took on the Balrog?, if the axe of Durin was lost in the fight, then whey wasnt the ring lost?, why wasnt Dain I wearing the ring when he was eaten by a cold drake?, if the ring wasnt the edge these kings needed to at least equal the feats of Azaghal then what was the use of it?.

Rock Paper Scissors rarely makes a good analogue to anything with more than one variable.

Like Rad said Dragons' physical bodies are far more vulnerable under their scales than Balrogs' flame-shadow "bodies". A lucky shot through the eyeball (or into a weak spot in otherwise diamond hard armour pointed out to you by a bird) could bring down a Dragon in a way that it maybe couldn't a Balrog. Legolas wasn't particularly powerful, nor were his bow or arrows works of arcane craftsmanship, his arrows might not even affect a Balrog through its cloak of fire, like Gandalf says, this "foe is beyond any of you".

The rings given to the Dwarves played on their natural greed and jealousy rather than anything else. They weren't designed to corrupt like the 9 were, nor do they grant "power" like the Elven rings. Sauron's aim with the 7 rings was to "nullify" the Dwarves somewhat by ensuring their Lords would be overcome by the need to increase their hoards, so in that respect wearing a ring or not would probably not affect the outcome of any battle. The "use" was because they wanted the rings, similar to Gollum (although obviously far less potent), they had no real benefits to the wearer I don't think.

As for why the ring wasn't lost, I imagine this was, at least in part, due to Sauron's will (he did have slight influence over the Dwarven rings, although much less than the Men - Dwarves are a bit too hardcore to be corrupted like the Men were). Sauron would want the Rings to remain in circulation to perpetuate his influence. He liked to make it known that any 'lost' Dwarven ring was still "recoverable" if you sided with him, again, he aimed to use the Dwarves' attachment to the Rings to his advantage, so having one irrefutably lost is one less bargaining chip. Could have just been luck too, of course.

Originally Posted by Curandhras

The rings given to the Dwarves played on their natural greed and jealousy rather than anything else. They weren't designed to corrupt like the 9 were, nor do they grant "power" like the Elven rings. Sauron's aim with the 7 rings was to "nullify" the Dwarves somewhat by ensuring their Lords would be overcome by the need to increase their hoards, so in that respect wearing a ring or not would probably not affect the outcome of any battle. The "use" was because they wanted the rings, similar to Gollum (although obviously far less potent), they had no real benefits to the wearer I don't think.

I just have to correct you here, but the Seven were most definitely designed to corrupt. It's just that Dwarves proved much harder to corrupt than Men, and instead it played on their greed. Sauron was furious about this failure and set to reclaim the Seven.

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

I just have to correct you here, but the Seven were most definitely designed to corrupt. It's just that Dwarves proved much harder to corrupt than Men, and instead it played on their greed. Sauron was furious about this failure and set to reclaim the Seven.

Ah fair enough, I thought the "corruption" was supposed to be amplifying their greed etc as opposed to actually turning them into wraiths.

Sauron underestimating the Dwarves stubborness

I think there's something to be said for the magical weapons theory. In RoTK it says that the enchantments that protected the Witch-king could not have been pierced by any ordinary weapon. It seems reasonable to suppose that the weapons of the dwarves were to some degree ineffective against the Balrog. If you want to kill a Balrog, you really want a weapon (such as Glamdring) which does Beleriand damage.

Originally Posted by Curthol

I think there's something to be said for the magical weapons theory. In RoTK it says that the enchantments that protected the Witch-king could not have been pierced by any ordinary weapon. It seems reasonable to suppose that the weapons of the dwarves were to some degree ineffective against the Balrog. If you want to kill a Balrog, you really want a weapon (such as Glamdring) which does Beleriand damage.

Haha, you never know though, what if Ancient Dwarf Make is super effective against Balrogs?

Originally Posted by Curandhras

Haha, you never know though, what if Ancient Dwarf Make is super effective against Balrogs?

Thaurlach seems to have a weakness to Beleriand not Ancient Dwarf Make.

http://lotro-wiki.com/index.php/Thaurlach

Originally Posted by Snoggy

Thaurlach seems to have a weakness to Beleriand not Ancient Dwarf Make.

http://lotro-wiki.com/index.php/Thaurlach

It does make sense I suppose...

[QUOTE=Curandhras;6339536]With the greatest of repect to JRRT it's a deus ex to kill the WK in this way. It's a very well crafted and intertwined one, but at the end of the day a Hobbit and a girl just out of puberty kill one of the most deadly foes around.

How many fantasy stories are there where the villain is defeated by an equally powerful good guy?

Originally Posted by Curandhras

Haha, you never know though, what if Ancient Dwarf Make is super effective against Balrogs?

Dwarves are more concerned with Dragons, which steal their hoards, than the other evil creatures Morgoth created. Likewise, Elves are more worried about Morgoth himself, and beings like him (balrogs and the other things that fall under the Ancient Evil category).

Originally Posted by LoyKashka

How many fantasy stories are there where the villain is defeated by an equally powerful good guy?

Well, Frodo is not as powerful as Sauron, yet his 'defeat' of him isn't a "deus ex machina" in the way Merry and Eowyn's defeat of the WK sort of is. It's got nothing to do with the relative power, more the unlikely and very convenient method.

Originally Posted by LoyKashka

Dwarves are more concerned with Dragons, which steal their hoards, than the other evil creatures Morgoth created. Likewise, Elves are more worried about Morgoth himself, and beings like him (balrogs and the other things that fall under the Ancient Evil category).

Yeah I know, I was only joking. I just thought it was funny that we were applying LotRO damage types to actual story elements like Glamdring etc.

Originally Posted by Curandhras

Well, Frodo is not as powerful as Sauron, yet his 'defeat' of him isn't a "deus ex machina" in the way Merry and Eowyn's defeat of the WK sort of is. It's got nothing to do with the relative power, more the unlikely and very convenient method.

It is, because Frodo doesn't 'defeat' Sauron - he fails at the last minute, and it's only the deus ex machina of Gollum's intervention and subsequent 'accident' that saves the day. Much the same thing as the WiKi, big bad meeting his doom in an unlikely and 'convenient' manner because it's fated to happen that way.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

It is, because Frodo doesn't 'defeat' Sauron - he fails at the last minute, and it's only the deus ex machina of Gollum's intervention and subsequent 'accident' that saves the day. Much the same thing as the WiKi, big bad meeting his doom in an unlikely and 'convenient' manner because it's fated to happen that way.

Actually, thinking about it Gollum's fall is literally a deus ex. Haha. For some reason I had it in my head that God's involvement made it much less of a succession of coincidence and more an obvious plan.

I've never read anything by Tolkien implicating Eru (directly) in the coming together of Merry and the WK (although he probably has said/written it) which is why it struck me as more "bold" an occurrence than Gollum's fall which he later "admitted" was a shove by Eru.

Despite skimming these insanely long posts, it didn't seem this was addressed. Here goes:

Originally Posted by Gennoslo

I do wonder about Merry's sword though... it was made by the Dúnedain of Arnor.
But these where men.... not elves, anyone have any lore that talks about how men enchanted things?

I believe the swords were of Numenor-make, and so they were woven with enchantments that the Numenorians learned from the elves of Valinor/Tol Eressea, who learned them from the gods. It's difficult to understate the might of Numenor in its heyday.

Originally Posted by Gennoslo

Correct me if im wrong... but in my observation, Gandalf would not normally have unleashed his power to its fullest against a non-maiar opponent even if it meant the falling of the fellowship and the death of Frodo.

I'm not sure if I would go so far as to say that he would keep things under wraps in the most dire of circumstances because a Balrog was the most dire of circumstances (to an extent) and was a great threat to the success of the Fellowship. I think iorviel hit this nail on the head when she mentioned the spiritual nature of certain enemies.

It also speaks to this argument as a whole: Gandalf, one of only five Maiar actively assisting the free folk of Middle-earth, died in his duel with this Balrog. Whether you want to argue the might of Gandalf versus that of a Noldor of the First Age or the relative strength of Balrogs is irrelevant: Durin's Bane was a bad dude if he took out Gandalf. So a bunch of Dwarves, kingless, disheveled, full of weird superstitions against the nastiest spirit-foe of their day, stood ostensibly no chance against him.

And let's not forget the unending harassment on the part of the orcses.

Originally Posted by Gennoslo

.... Its why Illuvtar himself for the only time in the Third Age decided to do something... and brought Gandalf back and made him a white wizard...

Are you sure it was the One himself?

Originally Posted by Gennoslo

One question I do have though.... Wasn't Gandalf and the Valar present during Illuvtars song? shouldn't Gandalf have known about the Belrog? or where somethings left out of the song?

This is a good point, but I believe the Song was not revealed in whole to the thought of the Ainur. Even if it was, and even if Gandalf/Olorin could remember that one bit where the Balrog stowed away in Moria, perhaps his foresight was clouded by his human form. Or, perhaps he just knew it would probably come and he decided to roll the dice.

In the films they made it look like Gandalf was sure it would happen all along, but in the book Gandalf is the one itching to take the Moria route, while Strider would rather not.

Interesting stuff!

In his guise as Gandalf, he was bound by rules and regulations, limits and bounds.
Balrog was bound by none.
Whereas the Balrog of Moria was a corrupted Maia of fire, Gandalf was not even a Maia; Olórin was. And Olórin was under lock and bolt. The only aces up his sleeve that he had in that fight were Glamdring and Narya, the Ring of Fire. Words of Command, maybe.
Remember, Gandalf died in that battle. Every time we see 'him' afterwards, it's different guise, different outfit. He says it best himself, in Two Towers: "Indeed I am Saruman, one might almost say, Saruman as he should have been.---"

Regarding why Dwarves couldn't kick Balrog out, there's this bit; after the Battle of Azanulbizar, when Dáin glanced through the East-gate into the darkness of Moria, and "he looked grey in the face, as one who has felt great fear" returning to his own folk at the bottom of the stairs, outside, and said to his leader, Thráin:
"-We will not enter Khazad-dûm. You will not enter Khazad-dûm. Only I have looked through the shadow of the Gate. Beyond the shadow it waits for you still: Durin's Bane. The world must change and some other power than ours must come before Durin's Folk walk again in Moria."
(Lord of the Rings " Appendices, Durin's Folk")

Originally Posted by Daeross

In his guise as Gandalf, he was bound by rules and regulations, limits and bounds.
Balrog was bound by none.
Whereas the Balrog of Moria was a corrupted Maia of fire, Gandalf was not even a Maia; Olórin was. And Olórin was under lock and bolt. The only aces up his sleeve that he had in that fight were Glamdring and Narya, the Ring of Fire. Words of Command, maybe.

It seems the restrictions on Gandalf's abilities weren't that iron-clad. He was bound by orders not to display overt signs of magical power, to keep things to a minimum, so as to remain a helper rather than a leader of the Free Peoples. There are times when the situation is sufficiently dire enough to warrant letting the cat out of the bag a bit, like when the Fellowship are surrounded by wargs on their way south from Rivendell.
However in his battle with the Balrog, with no one around, presumably he could unleash his full potential. It wouldn't make sense that a Gandalf crippled by some imposed restriction on his powers would be able to fight against a Balrog and survive, let alone defeat it.

There are more ways to kill a Balrog than just single combat I'd imagine. Or were the Dwarves so vain as to not cause a tunnel collapse? I'm sure that 1000 tons of rock could kill it easily.

I would call it a necessary plot hole in order to carry out further events. Even if the Balrog was being "sneaky" it couldn't have wiped out the entire kingdom.

The Dwarves just packing and leaving their great mansion doesn't work with their character either. They are naturally stubborn and hard. Plus, so many Dwarves leaving would have easily gained the attention of other folk.

Dwarves could not be corrupted by the evil of Morgoth, nor could they have been manipulated by a lesser being, so internal conflict was not possible in that way.

So how does ONE Balrog manage against a whole civilization? No matter how powerful it is the Dwarves are not sitting ducks, nor can a Balrog keep up years of warfare. Could it have burrowed out and gone into the MM seeking aid from the orcs?

Originally Posted by Floin

There are more ways to kill a Balrog than just single combat I'd imagine. Or were the Dwarves so vain as to not cause a tunnel collapse? I'm sure that 1000 tons of rock could kill it easily.

Unfortunately no. Gandalf inadvertently tried that, the ceiling of the Chamber of Mazarbul collapsed unto the Balrog and it simply shrugged it off. It seems that Belryg are not so bound to their form as Sauron is, even in the Third Age.
In the First Age, it is shown that they can cast off their physical form and travel as a spirit at great speed, and then reform a new body upon arrival. Judging by the way the Balrog moved around Moria and was able to overcome being burried under a severe piece of a mountain, it is likely that Durin's Bane still (partially, at least) retained that ability. It would also explain why the Dwarves could not kill it, since they only had physical weaponry, whereas Gandalf's combat prowess was likely of a more Unseen nature.

I would call it a necessary plot hole in order to carry out further events. Even if the Balrog was being "sneaky" it couldn't have wiped out the entire kingdom.

Why not? Dragons did, and your average Balrog would be significantly harder to kill than your average Dragon.

The Dwarves just packing and leaving their great mansion doesn't work with their character either. They are naturally stubborn and hard. Plus, so many Dwarves leaving would have easily gained the attention of other folk.

Stubborn, but not suicidal. If they knew they were going to die by staying, even they would leave.
This only shows the power and terror that Durin's Bane held for them. Even with all their resiliance and stubborness, after a year of being plagued by this towering shadow that slew their two kings, they just got up and left out of sheer desperation.

And it did gain attention from other folk. Most of the Lothlorien Elves actually fled their woods south into Gondor after hearing the tales of this "Nameless Terror" that lurked beneath the mountain. At the time it was not recognised as a Balrog, but they could probably feel his dark presence so close to their woods. Think of a Nazgûl's dread aura, but far more potent. It is not for naught that Belryg were viewed by the Elves as Morgoth's most powerful servants, save for Sauron.

Dwarves could not be corrupted by the evil of Morgoth, nor could they have been manipulated by a lesser being, so internal conflict was not possible in that way.

I agree, a Balrog could never start a civil war between Dwarves. If anything, they would be more likely to abandon little squarrels and instead band together more tighly against such a foe. But on the other hand, it is likely that its presence and the fact that it killed both kings suddenly made the social and military structure of Moria very chaotic. Not insofar that they'd fight each other, but more in terms of not knowing what to do, not very good communication, etc.

So how does ONE Balrog manage against a whole civilization? No matter how powerful it is the Dwarves are not sitting ducks, nor can a Balrog keep up years of warfare. Could it have burrowed out and gone into the MM seeking aid from the orcs?

Indeed, they were not sitting ducks doomed to die. They had the option to leave their homes behind, which they did. And I do believe a Balrog could keep up years of warfare. After all, it did not require food, drink nor sleep. As for burrowing out and seeking aid from orcs, we know that did not happen, since Tolkien states that Sauron peopled Moria with Orcs and Trolls in 2480, 500 years after the Dwarves left (the Orcs were sent mostly to collect Mithril and have a foothold in that area, but possibly also as emmisaries to the Balrog, which could potentially be persuaded to join the war).
And the Dwarves have no records of fighting any Orcs when being driven out, only the Nameless Terror.
(Plus, I doubt a Balrog would need any help from a bunch of unorganised MM orcs to fight against Dwarves.)

While all of these are very good points, I think its too difficult to compare the balrogs from Tolkien's original Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings. I think the best idea is that Durin's Bane was able to win through fear, guerilla tactics, etc. I mean, I'm sure at this point in the Third Age the Dwarves of Khazad Dum were quite content, having not fought for hundreds of years most likely. So they would have been slow to organize/be battle ready.

I think this argument would be easier to settle if Tolkien had lived long enough to finish re-writing the Silmarillion. As it is, he only got as far as Hurin's travels after being released from Angband (This includes the new notes about Tolkien's idea of the fall of Brethil). So the only source we have on Gothmog's death and the Balrog Glorfindel killed were from his original ideas from the 30's. Whereas if Tolkien had lived long enough to re-write the Ruin of Doriath, Fall of Gondolin, etc, he would have been able to probably keep LotR and the Sil in line with the Balrog's power. Alas that it wasn't the case.

Ultimately, I think we should just know that Balrogs are quite powerful. And that if you weren't prepared to fight them, you would be defeated.

Using the LotR definition of balrogs, in which they're of the Maiar (a lesser Valar), they use a veil of form on the landscape; in this case of flame and shadow. They can be destroyed although their actual being cannot. Would it not be true here that only something of also Valar or Maiar origin could defeat one of these balrogs?

Again, not talking about the Silmarillion version describing the War of Wrath, but the LotR version in which Durin's Bane is written into.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_(Middle-earth)

Personally I always took it that Narya, the Ring of Fire, was Gandalfs "Big Defence". It seemed to me that as a Creature of Fire and Shadow vs a Being of Light was the real fight. Narya nullified the Fire and it became a fight of Light and Shadow to which Light won out.

As for the Dwarves, I think the fact the creature was a First Age creature that "slept" away in the deep only to be disturbed into a frenzy should answer most queries. It's a huge creature that has both Fire and Shadow magic as part of it's very being. It's very nature and description is akin to a vast elemental force twisted to Evil and destruction.

Dwarves are hardy, strong and as they where not created specifically by Eru Ilúvatar (as he just granted their forms life) meant that the corruption by the dark lord was very weak on them. But as good as they are I'm not sure they are enough to defeat something that could basically use Fire and Shadow Napalm in combat. If it was just a creature of fire then maybe they'd beat it as it's basically living dragon breath but this is something with a whole different arsenal.

Originally Posted by Azrayel121

---this is something with a whole different arsenal.

QFT.
Balrog's mere presence within the gates of Khazad-dûm was enough to cause those who as much as gazed through the gates to feel dread. Dáin didn't apparently see the Balrog itself, and was still grey-faced when he came down the stairs after the Battle of Azanulbizar.

How can you fight fear and terror?

Originally Posted by Azrayel121

Personally I always took it that Narya, the Ring of Fire, was Gandalfs "Big Defence". It seemed to me that as a Creature of Fire and Shadow vs a Being of Light was the real fight. Narya nullified the Fire and it became a fight of Light and Shadow to which Light won out.

It is certainly a posibility. Although I must point out Narya is no good for battle, but I may indeed shield Gandalf somewhat in its role of preservance.

As for the Dwarves, I think the fact the creature was a First Age creature that "slept" away in the deep only to be disturbed into a frenzy should answer most queries. It's a huge creature that has both Fire and Shadow magic as part of it's very being. It's very nature and description is akin to a vast elemental force twisted to Evil and destruction.

I must correct you here, Durin's Bane was not huge (and certainly not of the size as depicted in the movies and most games). It was roughly twice the size of an average Man.

Dwarves are hardy, strong and as they where not created specifically by Eru Ilúvatar (as he just granted their forms life) meant that the corruption by the dark lord was very weak on them. But as good as they are I'm not sure they are enough to defeat something that could basically use Fire and Shadow Napalm in combat. If it was just a creature of fire then maybe they'd beat it as it's basically living dragon breath but this is something with a whole different arsenal.

I agree. And even if they could whistand its power for a while, they had nothing that could kill it. So in the end time is on Durin's Bane's side, which may help explain why it took the Dwarves a year before they left. It is apparent that Durin's Bane did not have the power to slaughter them all swiftly, but it didn't have much to fear from them either.

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

I must correct you here, Durin's Bane was not huge (and certainly not of the size as depicted in the movies and most games). It was roughly twice the size of an average Man.

I'd say something standing 10-14 feet tall is huge in any language :-P

Originally Posted by Azrayel121

I'd say something standing 10-14 feet tall is huge in any language :-P

Also wileding power of shadow and flame, thats really a powerful creature...I mean a legion of them made Ungoliant the Huge spider (tallest spider ever) retreat when it was about to eat Melkor (Huge humanoid God).

Originally Posted by Gennoslo

I was mistaken...

I did some searching.... anyone find any lore that says they could survive wounds that would normally kill a man? I see the wiki entry...
"""Although they could be slain or die of grief, elves were not subject to age or disease. Elves could recover from wounds which would normally kill a mortal man."""

but no citation is given :'(

Anyone have some actual lore? this really interests me because it would add support to the "elf can kill a Belrog" discussion.
anyone have any info on how their fortitude matched up against a hobbit? I know those little guys are damn well impossible to kill lol

I don't have the quote, but an example of this would be Beleg. Of whose story can be gleaned in the Silmarillion and Children of Hurin among other locations that talk about Doriath and Elu Thingol. Beleg was a march warden of Doriath, and on many occasions was gravely wounded, mortal wounds for any man - but through the strength of his spirit (and no doubt the innate magical quality of elves) was able to heal rapidly.

Originally Posted by Garandhero

... but through the strength of his spirit (and no doubt the innate magical quality of elves) was able to heal rapidly.

It was down to strength of spirit and how the relationship between body and spirit was different in Elves. Nothing 'magical' about it, as such.

I am just going to give you my interpretation of how a single Balrog could drive out the Dwarven society of Khazad-Dum.

First and foremost – there seems to be in this discussion a great deal of thought going into how an entire Dwarf army could not defeat a single Balrog. The answer as I see it is quite simple. A Balrog is a Mair. The same sort of angleic being as Gandalf and yes even Sauron and technically, all Mair are Valar and all Valar are Ainuir, which are of course as we all know beings spawned from the thought of Eru (god).

What people get to hung up on is the different ORDER of these angelic beings. Sure there are more powerful Valar, but TECHNICALLY if you really break it down, even MANWE is the same as Gandalf both offspring of thought from ERU, both Ainur, both Valar. Why is this important? Assuming even an entire army can kill Manwe would make most of us laugh. Would Manwe not just conjure some great catalysm to save himself…of course he would, and although the Balrog and creatures on level with Gandalf might not have the overwhelming destructive power of a Manwe or Morgoth they are no less angelic beings of immense strength. Bottom line is, No. The Army of the Last alliance could not KILL SAURON, The armies of the war of wrath could not KILL Morgoth, not could they technically destroy any true Mair fighting on his behalf.

This is where the story gets difficult, I think we have to assume that Balrogs as they are called in Silmarillion are not Mair for the most part. Maybe some are, but certainly Gothmog is not, at least in my humble impression Gothmog was an Orc of immense power (not unlike a Feanor for the elves) magically imbued for sure, immortal, but not angelic. This means when descriptions of thousands of Balrogs are presented more likely what is being described is thousands of more powerful orcs on the same level of magical strength as the Noldor.
The term balrog clearly was redefined at some point to mean Mair. If you can accept this sort of translation than seeing how a single Balrog conquered an entire city is far more understandable. As a Mair/Valar the Balrog would not be harmed by any weapon created on the earthly realm. As was mentioned before, this Balrog was not constrained by “rules” as was his counter-part Gandalf. I have no doubt the dwarves did assemble, and fight face to the face the Balrog of Moria on multiple occasions. I have no doubt the Balrog suffered wounds, and maybe even temporary defeats. But this is AN ANGEL, his wounds would be superficial, like a scratch to a man, his retreats tactical. Even in defeat, as an Angel what was to stop him from simply retaking a new form and coming back once again. This is how I understand “Flame and Shadow.” To me it’s totally conceivable that this Balrog was even destroyed in physical form during his encounters with the Dwarves, but refusing to return to the blessed realm, or being unable to return he simply vanished into shadow to retake form shortly there-after as flame once again.
True Balrogs that were destroyed, prior to Durins bane were only defeated by the most powerful, magical elves strong with the light of Valinor, magically sensitive and unique. For instance Glorfindel, I do believe defeated a TRUE Mair Balrog (Where as Ecthelion in my opion only defeated Gothmog) How you may ask. Well Glorfindel was a Noldorin Elf, born in the blessed realm with the fire and light of the two tree’s running through his veins. This gave any Noldorin elf special abilities, magically abilities which made it possible for him to cast down his foe although at the cost of his own life. Glorfindel was brought back to life for the deed. No man could of done this, no dwarf could of done this. Only a being of Valinor, and only the very highest and most noble/powerful of elves. Other elves who could of achieved this are limited; Feanor, his sons, Galadriel, Thingol (although a resident of Doriath, he did infact visit Valinor and so is counted among the Noldor) Finwe, FIngolfin, to name a few.

So it took another Angel, Gandalf with his immense power to send back the Balrog – not kill, simply erase from Middle earth and only he could do this because he was one of the same with the Balrog and could use his magical abilities to defeat the enemy. Swords/Axes etc. would be useless against such a foe and this is why the Balrog was able to destroy Khazad-Dum with relative ease

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

It was down to strength of spirit and how the relationship between body and spirit was different in Elves. Nothing 'magical' about it, as such.

Well I don't totally agree, there is something magical about elves especially those who lived in Valinor is there not? I am pretty sure there are numerous statements in the Silmarillion/Appendices and History of M.E that discuss magical elements of elves like Galadriel and Luthien for example. Beleg, although not of Valinor, still certainly had some magically ability (define magic however you wish, maybe it's just some level of control over the natural world etc....) to allow himself to heal as rapidly as described. Not to detract from his strength of spirit, which was obviously immense and of course those with a strong will to survive often do.

The dwarves of Moria were described as "digging too deep, too greedily". So that implies two things. That first they weren't prepared to find a balrog hiding in their kingdom (if they even knew what the hell a balrog was) and second weren't really in the condition to fight one. Digging "too greedily" implies that the dwarves were pretty full of themselves, too preoccupied with claiming the wealth of Moria, building their grand, unrivaled kingdom, etc.

So them being all killed and driven off by the balrog is actually pretty poetic.

Originally Posted by Garandhero

Well I don't totally agree, there is something magical about elves especially those who lived in Valinor is there not? I am pretty sure there are numerous statements in the Silmarillion/Appendices and History of M.E that discuss magical elements of elves like Galadriel and Luthien for example. Beleg, although not of Valinor, still certainly had some magically ability (define magic however you wish, maybe it's just some level of control over the natural world etc....) to allow himself to heal as rapidly as described. Not to detract from his strength of spirit, which was obviously immense and of course those with a strong will to survive often do.

None of it's 'really' magic - the Elves didn't see it that way (remember what Galadreil told Sam and Frodo about it?). And that was when she was about to show them something that was particularly 'magical'. As for the relationship between their bodies and spirits, it was just different for them - their spirits had much more power over their bodies, even to the point of being able to will their own death. And as Elves had pretty powerful spirits to begin with (and some were powerful to a startling degree), through sheer willpower they could drive their bodies on in a way others couldn't match. That's why Elves with particularly powerful spirits (those who'd seen the Light of the Two Trees) could be so strong in battle. A little bit like being in the Matrix, if you like

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

A little bit like being in the Matrix, if you like

Haha, I used this exact comparison before when talking about Tom Bombadil

"How can he see Frodo with the Ring on?"
"You know like..er... how Neo can see through walls and stuff?"

The dwarves could not defeat Durin's Bane [DB] because DB was a Balrog, a maia--an angelic/demonic being of incomparably greater power than a mortal, who existed from before Arda and was the direct child of the Thought of Illuvatar.

As others have pointed out, the treatment of many things in the legendarium is inconsistent. Things are inconsistent because we have been exposed to MULTIPLE versions of the stories from various dates. we are essentially looking at rough drafts. The Silmarillion is, in essence, nothing more than some edited rough drafts of the Professor's works. We can get the general gist of the narratives and by looking at other materials in HoME and in the Letters, we can develop an idea of what JRRT was thinking and or intended at the time that the material in question was written.

1) Balrogs are vastly more powerful and far fewer in number (according to Letters, at most seven) than what we see in the Fall of Gondolin. They are not minor spirits, but powerful members of the Maiar "race."

2a) DB seem largely impervious to physical harm alone. We can assume that we have three fairly acceptable cases of Balrog destruction that are considered a solid part of the legendarium. The destruction of Gothmog at Gondolin, the un-named Balrog in the High Pass who combats Glorfindel, and DB. All other cases seem questionable due to the reduced nature of the original balrog concept--and the details of the Gothmog and Glorfindel combats are also, in essence, unknown, because of their early date. So, not a lot of info to draw upon.

2b) I state that DB seems impervious to physical harm alone due to a few things we see/hear in FotR. Most importantly, DB falls what is probably 1000 or more feet from the Bridge, but survives. If he were capable of flight (and I am a member of the Balrogs have no wings school, ITFP), then the Bridge and chasm would have presented no obstacle, hence no need to cross on foot ITFP. Gandalf, who assuredly has no wings, also survives the fall--but he too is a maia. This argues either a certain degree of physical invulnerability or abilities of protection (control over the laws of physics by whatever means that we would deem to be "magic."). We also hear Gandalf say, when DB appears, "swords are of no use here." This implies an inability to harm DB using even a weapon as puissant as Anduril, which cut the Ring from Sauron's hand in it's earlier form of Narsil.

We have the three generally accepted balrog incidents mentioned above. In each case there is an immortal involved--Ecthelion, Glorfindel, and Gandalf--2 eldar and a maia. In the Fall of Gondolin, all of the purported balrog incidents either involve immortals or Tuor, who is later accepted as an immortal/eldar rather than as a man. All of this implies a certain quality of innate nature/power on the part of the combatants that places them on a different plane than a mere mortal such as a man or dwarf. We also have the consideration that, in the 3 particular cases, ANYONE who fought a balrog (even though they won) was themselves destroyed, at least physically.

A mere creature such as a Dragon is capable of driving a host of dwarves from their city/fortress (Smaug and the Lonely Mountain). These are essentially large, physically powerful beasts inhabited by a Fell Spirit and they ARE susceptible to physical damage despite their strength and armour (Smaug and Bard). I do not find it strange that a balrog could also do this as they are described in HoME/Silmarillion as being more powerful than Dragons.

Part of what is at question here is the nature of DB's physical embodiment. It seems to be of a different nature than that of Morgoth or Sauron who were fully physically embodied in naturalistic (if large and powerful) forms that could be wounded and that bled. Unfortunately we cannot answer this question on the basis of the available info.

I strongly suspect that NO MORTAL, with any weapon (or any number of armed mortals) could face a maia in combat and live to tell the tale, let alone hope of victory. Remember that Gil-Galad was a combatant against Sauron (and that Elendil was descended, ultimately, from Melian the Maia and that his "elvish" blood was likely stronger than that of the later Kings and Chieftains of the Dunedain) and that the other instances (Tol Sirion and Morgoth v. Fingolfin) we have also involve immortals or other special beings (Huan). The gap in capability is simply too great. Their command of the immediate environment is probably simply too great (what we would call magic). This implies an element of combat that occurs on a non-material plane, which probably only an immortal is capable of--remember that Glorfindel is described as a prince of the Noldor, whose power is great against both the seen and the UNSEEN (FotR).

Morgoth's power, even in his physically embodied and attenuated form was so great that the entire Host of the Noldor was flat out told that they had no chance of victory against him. While a maia's power would be less, I cannot think that the gap between the mortal and immortal could be readily closed. As Christopher Tolkien notes in the intro to the Narn I Hurin Hin, Morgoth described himself as the Master of the Fates of Arda and that all things within it bent slowly but surely to his will--and it wasn't an idle boast. I cannot help but think that a maia would have a similar, if less extensive capability.