If balrogs had wings how could they fall?

[Varda]

I hope this doesnt bring up a sore subject, since I know this is hotly debated, but..... my roommate just brought up a point that sounded interesting. She just finished reading LotR for the first time. She remarked that if a balrog did have wings it could not fall. Yet perhaps it could still fall with wings if the wings were not useful for flying but were kind of like the wings of a penguin, which are used just for balance (i guess)..... if anyone is annoyed by me bringing this up, though, feel free to close this thread

[Comic Book Guy]

Here we go again :P

In the Bridge of khazad-dum, when the Balrog spreads his Wings/Shadow Wings across the room, it gives the impression that the Wings/Shadows are of a great span, too great unfortunately for the Balrog if his Wings are physichal. If they are real wings he won't have the room to use them to fly out of the chasm.

So what happens when a Balrog is in a open space? We get the chance for an answer in Gandalfs account of fighting the balrog. Gandalf states that he fell off a mountain-side. He could use his wings to fly himself out of the situation, but he didn't, or coudn't.

Of course there are some answers to these, His wings could have been injured in the duel with Gandalf or he hadn't used his wings in a long time so he more or less forgot how to use them.

[Ñólendil]

*jabs his eyes out*

Yeah, you brought it up. My points:

1) Not everything with wings can fly, as you realize.

2) There is no indication that the Balrog was after anyone but Gandalf, he needn't have flown back up to the bridge, and anyway they were falling slow enough to fight on their way down. It may have actually used its wings

3) On the fall on the mountain peak: a shot bird falls off a tree. He was hit by lightning bolts for ten days, wings or not he's going down.

4) A Balrog probably doesn't need wings to fly anyway.

Ultimately what it comes down to is this:

They were darkness in the shape of wings. If you call that wings, or you don't, it's your business, but Tolkien did. First, when the 'wings' were first coming out, he said 'like wings', and then when they were fully stretched, he said 'and its wings were spread from wall to wall'. Michael Martinez once pointed out that the plastic wings of a little girl in a fairy costume on Halloween are still called wings. They aren't the appendages attached to birds, but they are still wings.

One poster called Morthoron on another forum once actually made everyone reach a consensus about this. It was decided that Balrogs used Moria Stealth Jet Packs, I alone held to the view that they were Flaming Bullfrogs.

[Erewe]

"Hey, look, there he goes! Oh, it's just a crumby Balrog"

--Crow T. Robot



Inoldonil, I think you've hit the nail on the head. One must remember that a shadow went before the Balrog that changed size, and if I'm not mistaken, shape. It may have made itself appear to have wings, perhaps to be more threatening(?) while in fact they are only made of shadow.

--Erewë

[fatclown]

how come when you throw a rock at a bat it will fall?
It has wings! Its a simple concept. I belive they had wings much like dragons. But when some balrogs are cast down, they simply cant recover in time to gain flight from their devastating fall. Also, i belive the wings had to support a rather un-aerodynamic form, it would be very hard to recover. Evidence may also be said to the theory that balrogs used wings to balance themselves in perilous situations ( gothmog vs glorfindel on the mountain?)

[Ñólendil]

But the Balrog we see in Mória (the only Balrog seen extensively in narrative from the new legendarium) did not always have wings. How could it have wings like a Dragon if it didn't always have wings? How physical really are wings that are not always there? They arose from the 'shadow' or perhaps more properly 'eminating darkness' around the Balrog.

As for Glorfindel and the Balrog, that was a wingless, man-sized Balrog that quite probably rode to Gondolin in cavalry. The old Legendarium, the old Balrogs. Tolkien later commented that the battle may need revision. I wished we could have read a lengthy account of a Balrog-battle in the new conception, besides Gandalf's, of course.

[fatclown]

Responding to imhadil
I suppose the wing subject is depatable from kazahd dum. But
' As for Glorfindel And the balrog, that was a wingless, man sized balrog that quite possibly rode to gondolin in calvary.'

Uhh well I remember reading that it was Gothmog lord of the balrogs. Not exactly man sized, and i got several impressions that it was winged.

[Ñólendil]

The Elf who slew Gothmog was Ecthelion, Lord of the Fountains.

What I meant is that the Balrog/Glorfindel battle you read about in the published Silmarillion is not the Balrog/Glorfindel battle JRR Tolkien wrote. Read any of the History of Middle-earth? In the earliest versions of the Battle between Gandalf and The Balrog, the Balrog was indeed man-sized, and definitely wingless. That was when Strider was Trotter, the hobbit-ranger. In that version the Bridge broke when a Cave-troll leaped onto the bridge. These are the Balrogs of the old mythology: in the Book of Lost Tales.

There were hosts and hosts of them, they were an entire Race. Before the Lord of the Rings was published, they were actually bred by Morgoth. They rode into battle. They were man-sized. After the Lord of the Rings was published, it was seen by Tolkien that Balrogs were far more powerful and terrible than that. He began to update a few notes in the Annals of Aman and the Annals of Beleriand (published in Volumes X and XII of History of Middle-earth). He decided they were Maiar in the service of Morgoth, but for long there were still many.

Finally realizing, apparently, that the Elves would have no chance against hosts of the Balrogs of the kind seen in Mória, he decided there were only 'say three or at most seven' Balrogs altogether, but this never touched narrative.

Nor were the Balrog battles from the First Age ever updated. A few notes in narrative reflect the new idea, such as the Balrogs passing over Hithlum with winged speed to the aid of Melkor. But it was pretty much the old Balrogs.

So when Christopher Tolkien has to put together a Silmarillion, he's got to use the old texts. Problem is, those aren't in accord with the new conception of Balrogs. So he makes their description vague, he cuts out all that he feels he should that contradicts the Lord of the Rings, and leaves the rest. So naturally you may get the impression Gothmog was rather large (he however fought Ecthelion, not Glorfindel), and had wings and all that.

In light of Tolkien's new idea about Balrogs, he must certainly have looked like the Balrog of Mória, but if this sort of Balrog had touched the old narratives, we would read different accounts of the battles in the Silmarillion. It is thus difficult to make theories about the new Balrogs based on narratives which contained the older ones.

[Selwythe]

There is no indication that the Balrog was after anyone but Gandalf, he needn't have flown back up to the bridge, and anyway they were falling slow enough to fight on their way down. It may have actually used its wings

I believe that the Balrog couldn't go up. When Ecthelion jumped on Gothmog and forced them both into the well, Gothmog didn't try to get out even though it was obvious that he knew it was his doom and that his real target was Tuor.

Maybe Morgoth or Sauron later clipped them wings. Action parts each sold separately?

[Ñólendil]

I believe that the Balrog couldn't go up. When Ecthelion jumped on Gothmog and forced them both into the well, Gothmog didn't try to get out even though it was obvious that he knew it was his doom and that his real target was Tuor.

Again, see above post :) Ecthelion battles Gothmog (I believe) only in the old Tale of Tuor, published I think in Shaping of Middle-earth, Vol. V of the History of Middle-earth. Those were the old Balrogs (definitely without wings or anything resembling wings), JRR Tolkien never revised the battle or indeed that story. Well, he attempted to, he started a new Tale of Tuor, Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin, but for mysterious reasons he wrote nothing beyond Tuor's coming to the Vale of Tumladen. Ofcourse we know that because it was published in Unfinished Tales under the name of Of Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin.

[Michael Martinez]

You cannot use the account provided in The Silmarillion as a basis for comparison with The Lord of the Rings. As Inoldonil points out, the early description of Moria's Balrog was quite different from that in the published text. Tolkien changed the nature and number of his Balrogs while writing The Lord of the Rings. The Balrog of Moria has wings. Whether those wings could be used for flight, or were needed for flight, is not indicated by the text. But the Balrog had no need to try and "save" itself by flying out of the chasm (assuming it could or should have been able to do so). The fall was not sufficient to kill the Balrog. In fact, Gandalf says they fell for a long time, and that he hacked at the Balrog while they fell together. It sounds to me very much like the Balrog slowed their descent.

People assume that the Balrog was under some sort of obligation to fly away from Gandalf if it could do so. There is, however, no evidence to indicate that the Balrog was in perfect health. Gandalf had, by that time, been burned badly (or so he tells Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas) by the Balrog's flame (in their descent through the chasm) and Gandalf had whacked at the Balrog with his Elvish sword for quite a bit.

People also assume that, if the Balrog were capable of flight and wished to fly away, that Gandalf would have been powerless to prevent such an escape. As Inoldonil points out, the battle lasted for many days and Gandalf (and quite possibly the Balrog) used lightning in that battle. Unless it could have dodged lightning bolts while fleeing through the sky, it's not plausible to argue that the Balrog could or should have escaped that way.

When Gandalf finally threw the Balrog off the mountainside, it was either dead or dying. Smaug was not dead when he fell from the sky, but he was incapable of saving himself by flying away after Bard's arrow struck him in the breast.

Any creature, regardless of its motive abilities, will lose its power to do much if it is mortally wounded. So there is no point in arguing that a dead or dying Balrog should have flown away if it could have flown. He was defeated at that point, and even if he still lived while falling toward the mountainside where he went KABLOOIE!, he was incapable of preventing Gandalf from doing that to him, much less of saving himself.

By definition, vanquishing one's opponent in a life-or-death struggle deprives that opponent of life. At the moment victory becomes assured, the soon-to-be-vanquished opponent cannot save itself by flying or running or swimming or doing anything else.

[emplynx]

Read my quote. It may be refering to the shadow wings mentioned before but I think not.
|
|
|
|
V
EDIT: My quote is changed. :(

[Michael Martinez]

The Balrog of Moria only had one set of wings.

[Wayfarer]

My opinion has always been that the balrog would have used his wings in battle, but due to the nescessity of hand to hand combat, would not have been able to simply flown around in circles over it's enemies heads.

I.E. If glorfindel's balrog was of the 'new' kind, I would imagine that it came upon them suddenly from above. But once he was actually engaged by glorfindel, they would have become less of an asset.

After all... you're fighting with conventional hand to hand weapons (sword or mace, etc) and once you're on the ground, they don't add much to your mobility. They're just big, flapping, appendages that are easilky damaged.

As for the battle on the peak, I can imagine the balrog swooping and reeling, but again, when you're fighting with your claws, and your enemy is shooting of lightning, it wouldn't really be a smart move.

[afro-elf]

In the SIL it states that Balrogs were demons p 26

IF IF this statement applies to the OLD balrogs

They would still be powerful foes.


If the statement does not apply to the old ones OH WELL.



BUT I think is is more dramatic if it does and if the NEW balrogs are substituted it makes the struggles of those who fought them, Fingon, Feanor,Ecthalion, Glorfindel and Chun Li (opps street fighter Balrog mix up)

VERY dramatic.


Even if there were hordes of them they seemed powerful anyway. Why comment one such heroes being killed by Balrog in such ways if it was not is SOMEWAY impressive?

It seems that even the older lesser Balrogs weren't no joke. I would say that they were more powerful than orcs or trolls.

The newer versions being VERY POWERFUL.

[Michael Martinez]

The Silmarillion, the published book, is a composite work which is no more than an approximation -- based on Christopher Tolkien's knowledge, resources, and understanding of his father's work in the early-to-mid 1970s -- of what J.R.R. Tolkien might have contrived, had he lived long enough to actually complete the work. In fact, it's really not even close to an accurate approximation, given that in the last couple of years of his life, JRRT began abandoning the old myths in favor of a more scientifically accurate pseudo-history.

There is, in my opinion, no real value to comparing the Balrogs of The Silmarillion to the Balrog of The Lord of the Rings. The Balrogs of The Silmarillion are vaguely defined and depicted, and they are mentioned in a smattering of passages drawn from original works composed across a period of decades, and which were intended to be part of wholly separate myth cycles.

Tolkien reused creature ideas, character ideas, and story ideas, but he created several mythologies. The similarities and reuses between the various mythologies have led to a great deal of confusion and debate which can never really be resolved to any general satisfaction.

[afro-elf]

One question ,were they maiar in the old version?

[Ñólendil]

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

[afro-elf]

I guess what I'm striving to find out is that it seems that the old balrogs were not as powerful as the new ones. But, I still feel that they were still powerful, more so than orcs or even trolls.

Why make the those fought them seem like great heroes for fighting them?

[Ñólendil]

The 'old' ones were certainly less powerful than the 'new' ones. If you want to see about the old ones, you should get The Book of Lost Tales Part I and II and The Lays of Beleriand. I think you're right, they were still supposed to be more terrible than Trolls or Orcs.

[Kirinki54]

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

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

[Ñólendil]

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

[afro-elf]

K54


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

Not what Chris wrote.

[Ñólendil]

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

[afro-elf]

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

[FrodoFriend]

Will this debate ever be resolved?

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

[Arathorn]

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

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

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

[afro-elf]

OUCH!

[Lefty Scaevola]

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

[Ñólendil]

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

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

[Andúril]

Wings oF sHaDoW!!! :rolleyes:

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

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

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
At the risk of being rude: are you joking? When did the Balrog become a bird? It's wings were of darkness, and they were not even permanent, they developed before the eyes of the Fellowship.
Like any other part of a Maiar in incarnate form (assuming the wings exist at all), if they are they a materialized, they are subject to material damage, just like all the physical forms Sauron could take, IF not material and NOT able to interact physically with material substances, then they would not be used for flight anyway, since in that case they could not pysically push air around. That is just going back to the prior unsettled argument of "do they have wings", which is ASSUMED in a discussion of flight as a sine qua non. If no flight capable wings, then no flight. I do not recall magically levitating creatures form Middle earth, only the on magical flying ship, Vingflot.

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

[BeardofPants]

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

[Sister Golden Hair]

Gosh I wish this thread was dead.:rolleyes:

[Ñólendil]

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

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

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

[Kirinki54]

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

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

[Lefty Scaevola]

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

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

[Keith K]

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

[Ñólendil]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nibs]

What if he flapped his arms really REALLY fast?

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

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

[Keith K]

Originally posted by Nibs
What if he flapped his arms really REALLY fast?

You may have something there Nibs. He might've put a hurt on Gandalf from the odor such action would generate.

"Aren't you glad you use Ban, don't you wish everyone did?"

[Elvellon]

Hamlet got it all wrong, to have, or not to have wings, is the “real” question. ::rolleyes:::D

[Blackboar]

If...it can fly I can understand it not flyingin Moria-to confined a space but I don't understand how it fell of a mountain. I t wasn't that injured, it never actually died until it hit the bottom so I would say it can't fly!! Penguins can't fly, Ostrices can't fly so thats my opinion!:)

[Ñólendil]

but I don't understand how it fell of a mountain. I t wasn't that injured, it never actually died until it hit the bottom so I would say it can't fly!!

How do you know it wasn't that injured? It had been fighting for ten days. Gandalf was evidently so injured, for he died without plummeting to his death. If you shoot a sparrow from it's nest, it will fall and die, whether it has wings, or whether it can fly, or not.

[Radagast The Brown]

originally posted by Blackboar
If...it can fly I can understand it not flyingin Moria-to confined a space but I don't understand how it fell of a mountain. I t wasn't that injured, it never actually died until it hit the bottom so I would say it can't fly!! Penguins can't fly, Ostrices can't fly so thats my opinion!I supported the theory that this balrog had wings though it wasn't able to use them... as Blackboar said. It is logical... *thinking few minuts* but than, if they had wings, WHY? Maybe because they wanted to look more frightening?

[Lefty Scaevola]

The putatvie wings may have heat exchange organs, like the finned dinosaurs had, which were also used for threat and display.

[Fair Ranger]

I think the Balrog is like a chicken or a penguin. I mean, a big chicken or a penguin, but one none the less.

I mean, chickens and penguins have wings, but they don't fly. Actually, neither do ostritches!!! Mind you, it would be a lot less scary if it was a giant chicken chasing you instead of the Balrog!


:p ;) :D

[Fair Ranger]

Originally posted by Ñólendil
How do you know it wasn't that injured? It had been fighting for ten days. Gandalf was evidently so injured, for he died without plummeting to his death. If you shoot a sparrow from it's nest, it will fall and die, whether it has wings, or whether it can fly, or not.

But if you shoot a sparrow from it's nest, it will be dead before it hits the ground, so surely it couldn't fly even if it wanted?

:confused:

[Radagast The Brown]

originally posted by FR
But if you shoot a sparrow from it's nest, it will be dead before it hits the ground, so surely it couldn't fly even if it wanted?I think he meant that the sparrow will not die from hitting the ground. He meant that the sparrow will die from the shot.

[Ñólendil]

My points is actually that it does not matter when it dies (at impact of arrow, or earth) -- what matters is that any bird will not be saved by its wings after being shot, whether it can fly or not. The argument that The Balrog couldn't have had wings because he fell is thus absurd. The title of this thread if "If the Balrogs had wings, how could he fall?" My answer is "he was mortally wounded and dead tired", wings or not, flight or not, he fell and I don't know why anyone wonders why. Smaug fell and died when Bard shot him, wings, flight, and all, and no one questions that.