Posted: May 22, 1999 at 01:21:49: by Stephen Geard
: : : In a late decision Tolkien decided there were only ever seven Balrogs. However that change was never written back into the Silmarillion story. The published Silmarillion requires a large number of Balrogs. Seventy maybe, but not seven.: : Seventy?? Isn't that a little bit to much. If there where 70 Balrogs wouldn't Melkor have crushed his opponents. It took one Balrog to knock Gandalf out, wouldn't 70 Balrogs destroy entire armies?? : I think he meant seventeen which seems more plausible. No. I meant seventy (70). This sounds like a lot, but to me the published Silmarillion reads like there were a lot. Tolkien progressively reduced the number of Balrogs, and increased their power thru-out his life. In the Book of Lost Tales there were hundreds of Balrogs and they were not very powerful. They were just big scary monsters, and Tuor alone killed five in the Fall of Gondolin (see HoMe II:213). The decision to reduce the number to seven was a late one that was never incorporated into any story. The published Silmarillion lies between these two extremes. Would seventy have destroyed whole armies? Well yes, they did: Dagor Bragollach, Nirnaeth Arnoediad, the Fall of Gondolin, etc. But even so, individually a Balrog was roughly equivalent in power to a great one of the Noldor. Fingon and Gothmog were evenly matched until a second Balrog arrived. Ecthelion and Gothmog killed each other, likewise Glorfindel and the other Balrog. When he reduced the number of Balrogs to seven Tolkien decided therefore that only the greatest of the Maiar who followed Morgoth became Balrogs. The many lesser Maiar mostly took the form of Orcs (or other monsters). Some of these may have survived into the Third Age as, for example, Barrow Wights.
| 
