Posted: June 23, 2000 at 03:40:04: by Bacchus
: I don't believe that Balrogs have wings and I don't believe that they fly or glide even in short range. My argument is Gandalf's tactics when he recognize Balrog: "Over the bridge!" cried Gandalf, recalling his strength. "Fly! this is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly!" I MUST HOLD THE NARROW WAY!!! Why? Because Gandalf knew well that Balrog unable to fly (or glide too). "You cannot pass," he (Gandalf) said", because Gandalf knew that only way for Balrog was a bridge. The Balrogs action confirms its: "It STEPPED forward slowly on to the bridge". If Balrog fly, why he didn't use his air advantage? Then Gandalf breaks bridge and try to kill (or avoid) Balrog. What was a bridge-breaking reason if Balrog fly? In one minute imagine such scene: Gandalf stands on bridge, Balrog with his fly or glide-ability reaches fellowship in the end of hall and takes them out. How silly looks Gandalf!!! I cannot imagine this.
: The main argument on Balrogs ability to fly is this passage: "Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire." For me "with winged speed" is only metaphore as Gandalf's cry - "Fly!... Fly, you fools!" In Silmarillion we have many examples that great distances are covered without wings or fly:
: 1st example: Feanor pursued orcs from Ered Wethrin to Dor Daedeloth. This range isn't so great as from Hithlum to Lammoth, but it is quit long.
: 2nd example: When news about Dagor Bragollach reached Fingolfin, he galloped to Thangorodrim and battled Morgoth. From Hithlum to Angband - this is a great distance (somewhere 250 miles). How he cover such range?
: So, fly-ability isn't necessary to cover great distances with speed.
: And, if in Silmarillion Balrogs fly well, why they not discovered Gondolin?
I see a couple of holes in your argument. First, there was almost certainly not enough space for the Balrog to fly inside Moria. Second, the fact that the Balrog chose to engage Gandalf does not prove that he could not have gone around him. If you were confronting a group, would you ignore the commando armed with an assault rifle to attack unarmed opponents? If you did, you would likely be in for a very unpleasant surprise.
|
