47

Apparently there is controversy over whether a Balrog has wings, either literal or figurative.

Do Balrogs have working, usable wings?

NOTE: I prefer an answer based on LOTR canon, meaning the books or information provided by J.R.R. Tolkien or Christopher Tolkien, etc. As you'll see below, I've already read both the regular Wiki and the LOTR Wikia entries on the Balrog, so I don't need that information repeated. As well, I've seen The Fellowship of the Rings movie, which clearly shows the Balrog with wings, but I don't consider movies of books to be canon proper. YMMV, of course.

Whether Balrogs have wings (and if so, whether they can fly) is unclear. This is due partly to Tolkien's changing conception of Balrogs, but mostly to his imprecise but suggestive and possibly figurative description of the Balrog that confronted Gandalf in Moria. The argument hinges on whether the "wings" are physical wings or simply figurative wings of shadow.

The two key quotations:

His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.

… suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall …

Sources: Wikipedia - Balrog, LOTR Wikia - Balrog, J.R.R. Tolkien The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings. I'm sorry I can't cite the exact page numbers of the FOTR quotes; I'm not through FOTR yet and the eBook was $15 at iTunes and I'm not paying $15 for a book I already own just to search for page numbers!

Community
  • 1
Slytherincess
  • 164,854
  • 146
  • 684
  • 899
  • 14
    You appear to know this is a controversial subject, which hasn't been settled by years of discussion. You can't possibly hope for a definitive answer, so this question is presumably intended to start more discussion. Discussion topics are unfortunately off-topic here. – DJClayworth Mar 17 '12 at 19:20
  • 24
    @DJClayworth -- You are incorrect. My extent of knowledge of LOTR is that I read the trilogy and The Hobbit in the early 80s when I was quite young. I've seen Jackson's movies a lot. I'm beginning a re-read of the four books and am about 1/4 - 1/3 of the way through FOTR. That's it. I was not aware it was a "controversial" topic, nor would I deliberately start a discussion-only question. I am aware of the expectations of this site. Personally, I prefer to extend the benefit of the doubt before making statements with a presumptuous tone. I certainly was not trying to create trouble. – Slytherincess Mar 17 '12 at 20:21
  • FWIW, you can usually get pages numbers via Amazon's "search inside" functionality. However, only TT and RotK are search insideable, for some bizarre publisher reason. – Tony Meyer Mar 17 '12 at 21:46
  • 1
    @Slytherincess FWIW, I consider myself to have above average Tolkien knowledge, and I think this is a good question. :) Is it debatable? Maybe. There are valid points on both sides. I tend to believe that they had wings, due to definitive Tolkien descriptions. I do not think they could fly with them, however. I see them as being an imposing thing, like a cobra's hood. If they flew, it would've been through magic. Tolkien had a keen sense of what worked in a physical sense. A shadow being would have no need of wings to fly. – Gabe Willard Mar 18 '12 at 00:13
  • 9
    @DJClayworth - that is a very poor assumption on your part as far as ad hominem, AND a very poor assumption that just because there's no definitive yes/no answer, it makes for an offtopic question. A definitive SFF answer would illustrate both sides of the debate, as dlanod's did (or rather, the essay he linked to did - his answer lacks "pro" points of view to be fully complete). – DVK-on-Ahch-To Nov 19 '12 at 15:05
  • 1
    @Slytherincess The question of whether Balrogs have wings, much like questions about Tom Bombadil's true nature, have been asked by fans since day 1 after Tolkien wrote the damn books :) It's impossible to answer, it's all speculation, and Tolkien left hints which can be interpreted either way. This riddle won't be solved here. The only possible answer is "there are hints either way". Now, please, don't go ask whether Tom Bombadil is Ilúvatar or an Elf or a Maia, etc. :P – Andres F. Dec 24 '12 at 05:16
  • 3
    @AndresF. - I just thought Tom Bombadil was super nutty. He and his wife Goldilocks. O_O ;) – Slytherincess Dec 24 '12 at 06:39
  • notice the books says "LIKE wings", says to me there are no wings. Wings would be out of place as well, seeing as nothing else except birds and insect in the Middle Earth has them. – jwenting May 14 '13 at 06:32
  • 4
    @jwenting: Do you count the Nazgul's fell beasts among the birds or the insects? And the bats present at the Battle of the Five Armies? – Junuxx May 15 '13 at 02:32
  • 7
    Dragons also had wings. – Shamshiel Dec 24 '13 at 04:12
  • 2
    Just remember: the real question isn't wings or no wings. The real question is fluffy bedroom slippers or no fluffy bedroom slippers! – Dranon Feb 10 '17 at 15:18
  • In the words of Sauron: "They wanted to have wings, but Melkor forbade it. Balrogs can’t fly, so giving them wings wouldn’t make such sense." – Wade Sep 06 '21 at 12:30
  • Imagine ‘I Believe I Can Fly’ by R. Kelly, but sung by a Balrog. – Paul D. Waite Feb 18 '22 at 22:26
  • 2
    In Soviet Russia, red balrog gives you wings. – PM 2Ring Feb 19 '22 at 01:04

9 Answers9

52

The best argument for a wingless Balrog does not depend on puzzling metaphors, poetic license or literary interpretation. Consider the two known examples of someone felling a Balrog.

Gandalf and a Balrog battle it out at Durin's tower, high atop Zirak-zigil:

I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high place and broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin.

And at the fall of Gondolin:

Many are the songs that have been sung of the duel of Glorfindel with the Balrog upon a pinnacle of rock in that high place; and both fell to ruin in the abyss.

Both battles end with the Balrog falling to its death. Now, if Balrogs had wings, don't you think one of them would have remembered and used them to avoid plummeting?

Secretly, whenever I read those passages... The Balrog has wings...

TGnat
  • 10,312
  • 4
  • 49
  • 58
  • 4
    Depends on if the wings were damaged in battle before the fall – Izkata Mar 17 '12 at 19:34
  • 14
    As @Izkata said, they could be damaged. Or, the Balrog didn't "remember" to use its wings, because it had the #### beaten out of it, and was only semi-conscious - or severely weakened and unable to muster up the energy needed to fly. – John C Mar 18 '12 at 10:58
  • 3
    Or it could be that the wings were meant for balance and not for flight – Jonn Jan 26 '13 at 11:39
  • 18
    Not to get into speculation on the mass or lift power of a Balrog, but when in a free fall that isn't a dive, it's very hard for a winged creature to right itself and set off flying. Wings are not jetpacks, they require a specific set of circumstances to work and generate enough lift to support the creature (and decelerate the fall). Of course, this is a creature of shadow and flame we're talking about, for all we know it has the lift of a 747 and the weight of a feather, but that's another discussion >_> – jono Jan 26 '13 at 12:24
  • 60
    "mass or lift power of a Balrog" - would that be an African or a European Balrog? –  May 06 '13 at 22:57
  • 18
    @mh01 The important question is, is the Balrog carrying a coconut? – Andres F. May 14 '13 at 00:39
  • 15
    A coconut of shadow and flame. – PeterL May 14 '13 at 18:44
  • 1
    This addresses whether a Balrog has such exceptional flight abilities that it can catch itself from a dead fall in the middle of a fight with an extremely powerful opponent, not whether it has wings. – DCShannon Sep 27 '16 at 19:14
  • 2
    Wings composed of smoky shadow would be useless for actual flight. Just sayin'... – Omegacron Sep 29 '16 at 19:48
  • 2
    Some animals have wings but can't use them to fly so this is a very weak argument. – cen Jan 21 '18 at 21:17
  • Something to consider also: in the times we see the Balrogs come to combat they're on the dragons (there is no suggestion they needed this when rescuing Morgoth from Ungoliante). – Pryftan Oct 01 '19 at 14:48
41

This has been discussed many times on the old Tolkien newsgroups, and the conclusive write-up of both sides of the debate is available in this essay by Conrad Dunkerson. I think the essay will provide a more complete answer than any response to this question.

To summarise the essay for the TL;DR crowd the answer, as expected for something still not settled, is that it is ambiguous. Those who wish Balrogs to have wings (including myself) can read that into the passages describing Balrogs. As mentioned in the essay, there are numerous instances of Balrogs not flying but every instance of the Balrogs not flying can be explained away as one of:

  1. Insufficient room to fly
  2. Too injured to fly
  3. Had no reason to fly at that time
  4. Was an early period 'pre-flying' Balrog

So there is literally nothing conclusive either way. My personal recommendation is to choose which way works best in your visualization of the scene(s) and stick with that.

dlanod
  • 62,876
  • 17
  • 303
  • 320
  • 42
    "3. Had no reason to fly at that time" — This is my favourite reason not to fly. Happens to me all the time. – Cerberus Aug 23 '12 at 23:47
  • 2
    Are there any instance of Balrogs yes flying? – DVK-on-Ahch-To Nov 19 '12 at 15:02
  • 6
    @DVK I don't think so. That essay dlanod linked to is very informative: almost all instances of Balrogs which might be flying can be also interpreted -- given Tolkien's writing style -- to mean "moving fast". Think Gandalf's "fly, you fools", where of course he meant "flee" and not actually "fly like birds" :) All occurrences of Balrogs "flying" are ambiguous like that. – Andres F. Dec 24 '12 at 05:21
  • 11
    The passage that most strongly supports Balrog flight is "Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire." – Shamshiel Dec 24 '13 at 04:13
  • My personal recommendation is to choose which way works best in your visualization of the scene(s) and stick with that. This is something I voiced (i.e. wrote) a long while back in an essay. You should enjoy what your imagination gives you. If you imagine it with wings you want to believe it that way more likely and if you enjoy that why not do really enjoy it? Does it matter if you view it differently - even if you're wrong? I mean it's in your mind and nobody should judge you for it nor should anyone tell you you can't enjoy it the way you want to. That's just wrong. – Pryftan Sep 09 '19 at 19:44
  • 1
    @Shamshiel That's figurative though. Tolkien often uses the word 'Fly' to mean flee. Which is actually one of the definitions. Remember also that the Balrogs were on the dragons - why if they could fly? But however someone prefers to imagine it should be what they imagine it as. Because otherwise they won't enjoy it as much and what is the point of reading if not enjoyment? – Pryftan Sep 09 '19 at 19:46
  • 1
    Something to consider also: in the times we see the Balrogs come to combat they're on the dragons (there is no suggestion they needed this when rescuing Morgoth from Ungoliante). – Pryftan Oct 01 '19 at 14:49
23

Another discussion of this matter is available here:

What makes this one particularly interesting is that the author started in the "pro-wings" camp but ended up in the "anti-wings" camp, and this page supplies his reasoning for it.

The usual "literal vs figurative", analysis of "winged speed", etc serves as an opener, but - IMO - the most compelling part of his argument begins about two-thirds down the page, where he makes an attempt to calculate what the wingspan of a winged Balrog would be (based on the chasm being 50 feet across, a dictionary definition of the word "chasm", the hall being wide enough for two rows of pillars, and a - admittedly flawed because it depends on pre-LotR material - deduction of a Balrog's height).

While it does make for a compelling argument, there are - as I said - flaws in it (the example I gave isn't the only one) and as always we're left with the words of Tolkien himself:

Of this two things are said, though which is true only those Wise could say who now are gone.

Update:

It's probably worth chiming in with my own reasoning here. First of all, I'm going to assert that when many people mentally picture the Balrog, they picture something similar to an Ifrit/Efreet from Arabian mythology:

An ifrit is an enormous winged creature of fire, either male or female, who lives underground and frequents ruins.

It's necessary to dispel that image (and I'm going to repeatedly hammer this point home so forgive me if I seem to be overdoing it) because when the Balrog is first encountered it actually has no fire at all:

Something was coming up behind them. What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.

Aside from circumstantial reasoning, such as that Gandalf would have described fire and heat when the Balrog entered the Chamber of Mazarbul, this description makes it unassailable: the Ifrit mental picture is incorrect and the initial encounter with the Balrog is with a being of pure darkness and shadow (picture something like Radagast's encounter with the Necromancer in the first Hobbit movie here).

It's only when the Balrog leaps over the fiery fissure that it then becomes the famously-described creature of "shadow and flame":

It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it. Then with a rush it leaped across the fissure. The flames roared up to greet it, and wreathed about it; and a black smoke swirled in the air. Its streaming mane kindled, and blazed behind it.

Even here we see that the shadow element was sufficient to douse much of the light from the fissure, so the Balrog's primary element is definitely shadow - fire is just secondary, and the "Ifrit image" must be discarded. This is also seen in Gandalf's description of after the Balrog fell into the abyss under the Bridge:

His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake.

So a Balrog's fire can be put out, further weakening (if it were even necessary to do so by now) the "Ifrit image".

Now for the "wings", and let's look at the first mention:

His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.

Again we're not talking about the fire element, we're talking about the shadow, and at this stage the shadow is starting to spread out and take the shape of wings. Now for the next bit, and here I'm going to quote a little extra (emphasised) than is usually done:

The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall...

Again, Tolkien de-emphasises the fire and strengthens the shadow, and the wings described are clearly those that the shadow "reached out" into the form of (and remember that the shadow, when the Balrog was first described, was not something separate around it, but was described as part of it: "it was like a great shadow").

The evolution of the wings clearly takes the following stages:

  • When the Balrog is first encountered there is no description of "wings"; the Balrog is not an Ifrit, it's a creature of shadow and shadow only that subsequently catches fire.
  • The shadow form is initially smaller but spreads out like wings at the start of it's encounter with Gandalf: "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings" - nothing about "fire" here.
  • Following Gandalf's challenge, the fire dies down ("the fire in it seemed to die") and the shadow form ("but the darkness grew") has by then become wings which "spread from wall to wall".

What we have here is - as I've said multiple times above - not a fiery winged demon like an Ifrit, but something quite different. Something that may have fire somewhere in it, but is primarily a being of darkness and shadow (see also Valaquenta: "their hearts were of fire, but they were cloaked in darkness"), and that darkness/shadow is mutable. In this encounter the shadow changed to take the form of wings, which seems to be what Tolkien is clearly describing.

  • I very like this analysis. – Mithoron Apr 29 '15 at 17:41
  • 1
    He sounds like he's made of a BBQ propane burner. Step in front of a spark or flame...WOOOOF! – iMerchant May 11 '16 at 11:34
  • 1
    That's a lot of effort downplaying the fire, which doesn't actually seem particularly relevant, but it seems to contain a pretty strong argument that it has wings, or at least that it can form wings from its mutable shadowy shape. – DCShannon Sep 27 '16 at 19:19
  • @DCShannon How is saying 'form of wings* an argument that it has wings or can form wings? 'Form of something' does not at all mean 'form something'. – Pryftan Sep 09 '19 at 19:50
  • @DCShannon Oh and yes the Maiar could change form. But there's still a difference between the two statements. – Pryftan Sep 09 '19 at 19:59
  • Something to consider also: in the times we see the Balrogs come to combat they're on the dragons (there is no suggestion they needed this when rescuing Morgoth from Ungoliante). – Pryftan Oct 01 '19 at 14:49
9

That is THE Tolkien question (possibly only rivalled by the Bombadill matter). Tolkien called the balrogs 'a kind of primeval fire demon': a semi-corporeal spirit in its native form. Demons being fallen angels, and angels generally being depicted as having wings I suspect that Tolkien may have envisaged wings: possibly ruined and terrible as the rest of the balrogs' physical manifestation.

johnny tea
  • 743
  • 6
  • 3
  • 2
    Thanks for the answer - +1. From what I've read, the Balrog in Tolkien lore is of fire and shadow, which of course brings the vision of an underworld (whatever one wants to call it - Hell, Hades, WalMart...) I wonder if part of the Balrogs' curse is to have accursed wings -- wings, but wings that won't work. If the Balrog had working wings in Fellowship of the Ring, it wouldn't have fallen all the way to the lake and the bottom of Moria. :) – Slytherincess Dec 22 '12 at 16:12
  • "That is THE Tolkien question (possibly only rivalled by the Bombadill matter)." Along with "Why didn't Frodo fly to Mordor on a giant eagle?" and "Do Tolkien's Elves have pointed ears?" – RobertF Oct 11 '17 at 18:18
  • Why anyone has a doubt about Tom Bombadil is beyond me. Since he invented him long before the hobbits meet him. he was in Oxford Magazine. Completely unrelated to The Lord of the Rings or the Legendarium. – Pryftan Sep 09 '19 at 19:52
  • @RobertF Well they don't. All the places the Elves are described there is no reference to pointy ears. He did however describe the faces. And how or why anyone doesn't get the other question is also beyond me. Of course the question of Tom Bombadil also comes from ignorance of when Tom was invented - and how he has no connexion with the Legendarium itself. Oh and the fact Tolkien stated this directly. – Pryftan Sep 09 '19 at 19:54
  • @Pryftan Not in the novels, but in one of Tolkien's letters and in the Etymologies from "The Lost Road and Other Writings" it seems clear Elves (and to a lesser extent, Hobbits) had pointed ears. See https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/35059/do-tolkiens-elves-have-pointy-ears – RobertF Sep 10 '19 at 20:52
  • @RobertF Oh? I don't remember this from the Letters. Actually I sort of have a very vague memory of this... In the Etymologies, really? I don't recall this and it seems to be an odd place for it to be. Oh well. In this case it depends on how you interpret what's 'valid' as such. In The Lord of the Rings the ears are never brought up but the faces certainly are and so are eyes. Hmm... Ta for the references. I am far too tired to consider looking into it more but I'll take your word for it esp as I have that vague memory of it being in the Letters... – Pryftan Oct 01 '19 at 14:46
  • As for Bombadil I don't see how that is remotely a question. In the Letters (it's also in HoMe) Tolkien directly states that there's no need to philosophise him. Not only that it's a well known fact (and this is also in the Letters) that he had invented Tom Bombadil long before: in Oxford Magazine. He also talks about why he kept him in the book. In other words the only reason it's a question is people want it to be a question based on not knowing the Oxford Magazine invention and the Letters. – Pryftan Oct 01 '19 at 14:51
  • @Pryftan It is a little strange that Tolkien didn't explicitly describe elvish ears in the novels. After all, when it comes to first impressions, what's the one thing that makes Elves stand apart from humans? Their pointy ears, right? In fact Tolkien doesn't describe any of the races at length in the novels, does he? Maybe the trolls, but I think he assumed we all knew what orcs & goblins look like. – RobertF Oct 01 '19 at 14:59
  • @RobertF Actually I would argue that he did describe the Orcs and Trolls - but only to the same extent of Elves i.e. not very detailed. In fact it's rather similar to all the other characters he describes: fairly brief. I remember writing a comment here somewhere on the Mouth of Sauron too and in HoMe there isn't really much difference from The Lord of the Rings. Is it strange? I don't know. I think that maybe he described the most important aspects: the lights etc. (consider when Frodo sees Glorfindel from the Unseen - thus lights). What I think of of Elves first is their faces/lights/eyes. – Pryftan Oct 01 '19 at 15:02
6

In The Lost Road and Other Writings, which contains a version of the Silmarillion post-Hobbit but pre-Lord of the Rings*, Winged Dragons are described as Morgoth's first airborne creations:

Then, seeing that his hosts were overthrown and his power dispersed, Morgoth quailed, and he dared not to come forth himself. But he loosed upon his foes the last desperate assault that he had prepared, and out of the pits of Angband there issued the winged dragons, that had not before been seen; for until that day no creatures of his cruel thought had yet assailed the air.

Balrogs certainly existed at this time in both Tolkien's imagination and in the story.

Couple this with the fact that the two specific instances we know of where a Balrog dies, both by falling, and it seems clear that Balrogs do not have wings. The passage in Lord of the Rings is an example of simile and metaphor that is often confused as physical description.

(*The Lost Road was written just as Tolkien was about to start writing The Lord of the Rings and represents quite a late version of the Silmarillion.)

Rand al'Thor
  • 134,408
  • 65
  • 607
  • 854
Ralph
  • 61
  • 1
  • 1
  • Thanks for providing the quote Rand al'Thor. It goes further by suggesting that Balrogs didn't previously fly; winged or not. – Ralph Sep 27 '16 at 12:51
  • Were the Balrogs really created by Morgoth? – TGnat Sep 27 '16 at 16:52
  • No, my mistake. I didn't mean to imply that in my answer, and the quote doesn't suggest it. I would argue that they are creatures of his thought though. – Ralph Sep 28 '16 at 11:42
  • @TGnat Tolkien has a very interesting letter with a pastor (or some other religious figure - I don't really know the terms) about the difference between 'create' and 'make'. That would be the best place for you to truly get a better idea. Sorry but I’m too exhausted right now and I have too much going on to fetch the book and find out what letter it is. What is certain though: they were originally each Maia that were seduced by him. – Pryftan Sep 09 '19 at 19:56
  • Something to consider also: in the times we see the Balrogs come to combat they're on the dragons (there is no suggestion they needed this when rescuing Morgoth from Ungoliante). – Pryftan Oct 01 '19 at 14:52
5

It is impossible to say with any certainty. If the Tolkien Society doesn't know, no one does. And the Tolkien Society doesn't know:

Although visual artists almost always depict Balrogs with wings, a reader of Tolkien is usually less convinced. In the ‘The Bridge of Khazad-dûm’ Tolkien says that “the shadow about it [the Balrog] reached out like two vast wings” (p. 330). This metaphoric reference to wings is shortly after followed with the description that the Balrog “stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall” (p. 330). There is no further mention of the wings as it plunges down into the abyss, or later when Gandalf describes his long fight with the Balrog. Tolkien’s description may just be a way of saying that the Balrog’s shadow seemed to take the shape of wings, because if it did possess wings, you would expect it to flap them when plummeting down into Moria, or use them in its battle with Gandalf on the mountain top.

When drafts of The Silmarillion were published in Morgoth’s Ring it was discovered that Tolkien wrote of Balrogs: “swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.” (p. 297). Again, at a first glance it may seem as if real wings are implied, but it’s also possible that “winged speed” is used in a metaphorical sense. Overall it is impossible to categorically say if Balrogs have wings or not, so it is up to each individual reader to decide.

[page references are to The Lord of the Rings: 50th Anniversary Edition, 2004; Morgoth’s Ring, 2002 UK paperback]

Community
  • 1
Wad Cheber
  • 69,816
  • 70
  • 523
  • 684
  • As a literal thinker I will say this: when one reads a figurative sense of a word then it should read that word in the figurative sense until it's specified to be literal again. And actually this is how language should read whether or no one is a literal thinker. Winged speed only implies that they were as fast as if they had wings. And in many places in The Lord of the Rings he uses the word 'fly' for flee. If you look at the dictionary you will see this too: 'archaic run away; flee', depart hastily'. As a philologist he knew this very well. – Pryftan Oct 01 '19 at 14:55
  • I suspect also that they don't specify it because of a diplomatic reason of some kind. If they were to read the books again and in full they would see that he uses a lot of metaphors including about 'flying'. If they looked at OED too they would know this even more. Not just the word 'fly' either but 'wings' and other such things. Also in The Silmarillion we know that the times the Balrogs are taken to a battle (and the rescuing of Morgoth from Ungoliante isn't relevant here because they were close by) they are on dragons. – Pryftan Oct 01 '19 at 14:58
4

I do not believe that the Balrogs have wings. This does not seem to be the case in any instance with their appearance in the 1st Age or with the Balrog of Moria. It is said that his shadow spread like wings, "the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings" [The Bridge of Khazad-dûm] which does not necessarily mean "his wings spread out". You might point out that shortly afterward it is stated "its wings were spread from wall to wall" so how can you say it does not have wings? I believe the wings being discussed are just shadows that appear to spread like wings "the shadow about it reached out" and as "the darkness grew... its wings were spread from wall to wall". The wings are just the shadows.

If the wings, which are shadows, are useable why make a drop into the freezing pool with Gandalf? When the Balrog does run from Gandalf in the pit why not take off and get out of his reach if he could fly rather than run with Gandalf at his heels? Why not take to the air in their attack on Gondolin in the First Age and shoot flaming missiles into the city out of the reach of the bows of the Elves?

The Balrog's have changed from demons to maiar, with a great increase in personal power. In The Book of Lost Tales many of them are killed by a single person, Tuor himself kills several. The later Balrogs Tuor would not have a chance to do such a thing. I do not think in any incarnation they were able to fly.

Belegorn
  • 1,852
  • 13
  • 13
  • Plus the Balrogs were taken to battles on dragons. Why would they need that if they had wings? When Ungoliante attacked Morgoth the Balrogs were nearby so there would be no reason for them to fly literally. – Pryftan Oct 01 '19 at 14:59
0

I never finished The Lord of the Rings, but I did read The Silmarillion (I wanted to read in chronological order). It makes it clear that Balrogs are Maiar, corrupted by Morgoth. The Maiar, like all of the Ainur, had no fixed form and could change there shape as freely as we could change clothes. It is my interpretation that the Balrogs could have wings if they chose to.

I did not yet reach the part of Lord of the Rings where The Fellowship passes through the Mines of Moria, but according to the wiki (and the non-canon Movie) that the Balrog falls into a fighting Gandalf and ends up fighting him on top of a mountain. I interpret this as him changing into a form with wings mid-fight.

But that's just what I got out of The Silmarillion and the wiki. I'll have a more informed opinion when I find time to continue reading Lord of the Rings.

Molag Bal
  • 4,773
  • 4
  • 37
  • 63
Nick Marzullo
  • 11
  • 1
  • Good point about changing form, but I wonder if they actually could. After all, the wizards were unable to change form, being more bound to a body than your usual Maia. I think... – Molag Bal May 11 '16 at 02:11
  • I just asked a question about which Maiar can change form at will. The Balrogs apparently can’t, but still, I don’t think there’s any real evidence that they can’t sprout wings. – Molag Bal May 11 '16 at 04:56
0

Balrogs were winged.

"Some things are too big to be seen" G.K. Chesterton.

I wanted to tackle this question approaching my answer applying the paradox above, quoted to a number of times by Chesterton. From him, J. R. R. Tolkien confesses, in his "On Fairy Stories", the influence of what he terms Chestertonian Fantasy on his formulation of the nature, supernature and mythology.

With the aforementioned quote in the back of our minds, let's take a look at seven references from Tolkien works.

1. —The Lord of the Rings, II:5, "The Bridge of Khazad-dûm":

"His enemy halted again, facing him; and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils."

Note that Tolkien plain language explicitly alludes to the possibility of the Balrog having wings. Two vast wings.

2. —The Lord of the Rings, II:5, "The Bridge of Khazad-dûm":

The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darkness grew. It stepped forward slowly on the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still Gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small: and altogether alone; grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm.

In this passage, Tolkien plain language refers to wings. Wings from wall to wall. Enormous wings, so to speak.

3. —The Lord of the Rings, II:7, "The Mirror of Galadriel":

"An evil of the Ancient World it seemed, such as I have never seen before. It was both a shadow and a flame, strong and terrible."

In Aragorn's quote, as he explains to Celeborn about what caused Gandalf to fall in Moria, it can be inferred that Barlogs were so colossal that when they flew over their preys, their shadows were so big, and their breaths pure fire, that their preys only saw shadows and flames.

4. — The History of Middle-earth, Volume X ("Morgoth's Ring"), the Later Quenta Silmarillion: the Tale of the Silmarils:

Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire.

Once again, Tolkien mentions wings. Winged speed as a tempest of fire. A tempest created by huge wings.

5. —The Lord of the Rings, II:9, "The Great River":

After leaving Lorien, when the Nazgul first flies above them and Legolas shoots at it, Gimli says "too much it reminded me of the shadow of Moria -- the shadow of a Balrog".

Gimli's words point to the huge flying winged shadow of a Balrog.

6. Treason of Isengard:

Gandalf challenges the Balrog by saying "It is forbidden for any Balrog to come beneath the sky since Fionwë[a] son of Manwë overthrew Thangorodrim."

Notice the difference between "to come beneath the sky" and "to come upon the face of the earth".

7. Tolkien, J.R.R.. The Fall of Gondolin from The Silmarillion:

in the North Morgoth and his demonic broods (Balrogs) and the Orcs (Goblins, also called Glamhoth or people of hate) hold sway.

Etymologically, the word Brood comes from old English 'Brod' which means "offspring of egg-laying animals, hatchlings, young birds hatched in one nest," directly related to birds.

Even though exits much speculation among the scholars and readers as to whether the Balrog’s wings were real or whether this reference to them was a figurative description, I strongly think, based in the aforementioned that Balrogs were winged.

Bingo
  • 6,611
  • 7
  • 31
  • 85