posted
In Appendix A to the Lord of the Rings we are told that:
quote:"It came to pass that in the middle of the Third Age Durin was again its king, being the sixth of that name. The Dwarves delved deep at that time, seeking beneath Barazinbar for mithril, the metal beyond price that was becoming yearly ever harder to win. Thus they roused from sleep a thing of terror that, flying from Thangorodrim, had lain hidden at the foundations of the earth since the coming of the Host of the West: a Balrog of Morgoth ."
This would seem to refer to the War of Wrath that broke Thangorodrim and that occurred well after the establishment of Khazad-dum by Durin I, and yet, a "host from the West" assaulted Morgoth's fortresses (including Angband) long ages before just after the Elves awoke in the War of the Powers. Of that this was written:
quote:Nonetheless the Valar did not discover all the mighty vaults and caverns hidden with deceit far under the fortresses of Angband and Utumno. Many evil things still lingered there, and others were dispersed and fled into the dark and roamed into the waste places of the world awaiting a more evil hour...
Could it be possible that this Balrog was a refugee from that conflict, taking flight and hiding under the Misty Mountains before even the Dwarves founded Moria?
If not, and this Balrog is indeed from the War of Wrath, then just how did it sneak in under the Dwarves' noses, why did it go to sleep if there were Dwarves nearby to slay and terrorize, and how did it remain hidden there for almost 5500 years?
posted
I was always under the impression that the Balrog had fled to Moria from Angband underground. We are told numerous times how deep the fortress was and how many pathways it had. While I highly doubt Morgoth was able to tunnel all the way from the Iron Mountains to the Misty Mountains, we can't rule out the possibility that there were natural methods of getting from one to the other all underground. I don't know a great deal about caves or mountains but I do believe it is possible for "tunnels" to stretch on underground for miles.
Obviously, this analysis is only based on what happens in the real world, not in Middle-earth. But I suppose what leads me to this conclusion of the Balrog finding its way underground is, like you say, surely someone would have noticed it. Clearly we don't know of its origin, but if it fled from the war as you rightly suggest, surely someone would have noticed and marked its movements. I highly doubt it fled undetected by anyone, let alone made its way in to Moria above ground without any Elf, Man, Dwarf of Ent realising it.
This seems like a good topic of conversation though, bring on the theories.
From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I highly doubt that tunnels led from Angband all the way to Khazad-dum. The Balrog would have been probably the sole survivor from the War of Wrath, and so fled far east and hid himself deep in Moria to avoid the judgment of the Valar, but became trapped at the bottom for some reason (as evidenced by the fact that he knew all the tunnels, indicating that he was looking for a way out).
Then when the Dwarves were busy mining their own business, they released the Balrog, and so he drove them out, and he took over Moria.
However he refused to leave Moria, indicating that he was still hiding; during the Dwarf-and-Goblin wars, the Balrog wouldn't even leave Moria to help Azog's army from getting destroyed, even though it was a sore victory for the dwarves, and he could have helped Azog win. The Balrog was obviously dared not show himself outside, still for fear of the Valar.
From: Memphis | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is one text which suggests that the Dwarves released the Balrog from prison!
From: Bagshot Row, Hobbiton, The Shire! | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not "prison" in the sense that he was incarcerated, but that he became trapped there somehow in the tunnels under Khazad-dum.
From: Memphis | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Durin's Bane was not the sole survivor of the War of Wrath -the Silmarillion states that there were a "few" that hid themselves in like manner. But he was a refugee from this war and not the earlier War of Powers -I found a quote from "letters" which confirms it.
The Battle of Nanduhirion took place during the day IIRC and Balrogs cannot endure sunlight at all. When the Sun first arose, Morgoth's creatures hid, and when there was battle on Anfauglith he sent up fumes from Thangorodrim to blot the sky. Durin's Bane was apparently hovering by the Moria east-gate though because Dain saw him.
The Balrog first entered by some other, vastly-ancient tunnel system which happened to terminate in a cavern deep beneath Baraz --most unfortunately for the hapless Dwarves. Moria was still relatively shallow at the close of the First Age and Durin's folk had 5,500 more years of digging to do to awaken and/or release the Balrog. The Balrog was trapped ("imprisoned") by either the final tumults of the cataclysm of the First Age (if they didn't all happen in a day) or perhaps trapped later by the cataclysm which sank Númenor and which affected Middle-earth geologically as well, as the world was made into a sphere
Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind that the Silmarillion text hails from a time in which there were seemingly thousands of Balrogs in Middle-earth.
Tolkien held to this notion after The Lord of the Rings was written, but later (possibly 1958-ish) seems to have drastically reduced their numbers (to at most seven) -- although it must be said that he did not, at this time, revise every extant reference that still implied very many Balrogs in Quenta Silmarillion or the later Annals.
Christopher Tolkien however, did alter the passages for the 1977 Silmarillion to take out references to 'very many' Balrogs -- yet he did not alter the reference noted above concerning the War of Wrath.
Tolkien himself never really updated the end of Quenta Silmarillion outside of some cursory notations. Granted, he could have eliminated 'few' even as a cursory correction, but even CJRT warns the reader that such corrections that his father did make, should not be taken to mean that JRRT was truly revising this section of QS.
In short(er): this line reflects the notion that thousands of Balrogs had been as Morgoth's command throughout the First Age, and if Tolkien truly intended to drastically reduce their numbers (even had he never specified exactly how many in the story proper) would he have retained this some 'few' survived after the War of Wrath?
Hard to know, but the somewhat hazy external scenario might still be noted here in any case.
Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Keep in mind that the Silmarillion text hails from a time in which there were seemingly thousands of Balrogs in Middle-earth.
But also remember that balrogs were not yet Maia.
quote: Tolkien held to this notion after The Lord of the Rings was written, but later (possibly 1958-ish) seems to have drastically reduced their numbers (to at most seven) -- although it must be said that he did not, at this time, revise every extant reference that still implied very many Balrogs in Quenta Silmarillion or the later Annals.
Naturally, Maia were far fewer in number than lesser-beings.
But as for seven, let's consider that only one was named: Gothmog, the Lord of the balrogs; this would imply that he was "lord" of at most six lesser balrogs-- which seems a rather unlikely title for such a small number; likewise, six balrogs is a small number for them to have no individual names recorded. Even some orcs were named.
If this number of balrogs is accurate, recall that Gothmog and another balrog perished in the Fall of Gondolin; this would leave no more than five.
However it's mentioned that "balrogs were destroyed" in the war of wrath; this would limit this number to no more than four-- leaving the one who fled east to Moria.
Overall, the language seems to imply more than seven-- but again, it's purely speculative.
From: Memphis | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understand Galin correctly, the point is that the published Silmarillion cannot be taken as 'Gospel Truth', and later writings of Tolkien have to be factored in to arrive at a 'final version' of certain matters including the quantity of Valaraukar. Tolkien had changed his mind, as he often did, as his son revealed in Unfinished Tales and the History series.
It may be that if he had lived to truly finish the Silmarillion, that Gothmog's title as "Lord of Balrogs" would have been amended, if their quantity was to be so drastically reduced.
quote: But also remember that balrogs were not yet Maia.
quote:TWH wrote: But also remember that balrogs were not yet Maia.
My point was with respect to the numbers conceived at the time the language of the QS-War of Wrath passage was written (and the plural is Maiar by the way).
quote:Galin wrote: 'Tolkien held to this notion after The Lord of the Rings was written, but later (possibly 1958-ish) seems to have drastically reduced their numbers (to at most seven) -- although it must be said that he did not, at this time, revise every extant reference that still implied very many Balrogs in Quenta Silmarillion or the later Annals.'
THW responded: 'Naturally, Maia were far fewer in number than lesser-beings.'
According to CJRT's feelings about the texts, Tolkien appears to have imagined the Balrogath as Maiar at some point in the early 1950s -- generally in the phase when they were still imagined as existing in great numbers.
The external chronology cannot be known, but apparently Morgoth could multiply them at this point. See the Annals of Aman abandoned typescript (or AAm*) section 30: 'And in Utumno he multiplied the race of the evil spirits that followed him, the Umaiar, of whom the chief were those demons whom the Elves afterwards named the Balrogath.' CJRT notes that there seems no way to determine with certainty when AAm* was made, but he thinks or feels that it belongs to the first phase (early 1950s).
quote: But as for seven, let's consider that only one was named: Gothmog, the Lord of the balrogs; this would imply that he was "lord" of at most six lesser balrogs-- which seems a rather unlikely title for such a small number;...
See Halbarad's point -- that's if Tolkien might agree with this idea that 'Lord of Balrogs' is unlikely for seven Balrogs (which I would guess Halbarad is accounting for as well).
quote: ... likewise, six balrogs is a small number for them to have no individual names recorded. Even some orcs were named.
I don't see why this need necessarily reveal anything about numbers.
Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is that Maiar are generally fewer in number than lesser-spirits like orcs, trolls, werewolves etc.
Furthermore, the notion of the balrogs "multiplying" (as in breeding) also seems less likely for Maiar than for lesser beings.
In essence, when Tolkien chose to make balrogs into Maiar, they became more powerful, but fewer in number.
From: Memphis | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:that's if Tolkien might agree with this idea that 'Lord of Balrogs' is unlikely for seven Balrogs (which I would guess Halbarad is accounting for as well).
I was making an assumption but then it occurred to me that the Witch-king was the "Lord of the Nazgul" only eight other beings, so....<shrug>
quote:My point is that Maiar are generally fewer in number than lesser-spirits like orcs, trolls, werewolves etc.
So it would seem. If we knew the actual population of such spirits on Arda and whether Maiar were capable of procreation (aside from Melian with an elf)and ever did so, that would help. The Valaquenta states:
quote: These are the Maiar, the people of the Valar, and their servants and helpers. Their number is not known to the Elves, and few have names in any of the tongues of the Children of Ilúvatar; for though it is otherwise in Aman, in Middle-earth the Maiar have seldom appeared in form visible to Elves and Men.
quote: I was making an assumption but then it occurred to me that the Witch-king was the "Lord of the Nazgul" only eight other beings, so....<shrug>
True; but we knew there were exactly nine Nazgul, since such a small and organized group would naturally be accounted-- i.e. if there were only seven balrogs likewise under a "lord," then it would be strange that this number wasn't given.
From: Memphis | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The LotR is finished, polished work, ready and intended by JRR Tolkien for publication in stark contrast to the posthumous publications which are a chaotic slew of the author's construction materials -even the Silmarillion. Which parts of the latter mass can be considered canonical? Especially when some parts conflict -are there thousands of Balrogs, seven, or three?
That said, we don't know exactly what Tolkien had intended to write and publish about the Balrogs (or their number) in a finished, fleshed-out Silmarillion. Some are of the opinion that his latest writings are what should count or take precedence over previous ideas. Maybe there was going to be a small, "Unholy Order" of these demons with Gothmog as chief, much like Saruman leading the Istari?
A group of Middle-earth scholars has been working to create a more cohesive, internally-consistent Silmarillion and here's a project thread called "Bye Bye Balrogs":
quote:TWH wrote: My point is that Maiar are generally fewer in number than lesser-spirits like orcs, trolls, werewolves etc.
And as it had nothing really to do with my point in any event, once again, why quote something as if you are 'responding' to it?
quote:TWH wrote: Furthermore, the notion of the balrogs "multiplying" (as in breeding) also seems less likely for Maiar than for lesser beings.
No one said this was Tolkien's ultimate idea in any case; yet for AAm* at least, Tolkien seems to have imagined that the Umaiar could be multiplied in some way, and the reason to bring it up was...
quote: In essence, when Tolkien chose to make balrogs into Maiar, they became more powerful, but fewer in number.
... because your 'naturally' and etc might not be as natural as one might think -- at least not in the early 1950s -- where as I say, the text shows Balrogs as Maiar in the same general span of writing (if we follow CJRT's lead on the timing) in which there could be a 'host' of them.
It's also at least possible that this note to the Annals of Aman typescript wasn't necessarily Tolkien's 'ultimate' view (and 'many' Balrogs, though not necessarily a thousand for instance, survived as an idea despite being Maiar) -- sure I would tend to lean towards the argument that the 'lack of revision' to certain surviving references to very many Balrogs perhaps illustrates that Tolkien missed an instance, or just never got around to adjusting another...
... but even that much is still conjecture. It was Christopher Tolkien who edited these instances more completely (for the 1977 Silmarillion), or at least CJRT did not record that his father ever revised them; except of course, CJRT did not alter 'few' for the War of Wrath passage.
Tolkien's marginal note need not mean he was ever going to incorporate an exact number into the text -- in my opinion, I'm not sure picking a specific number was really necessary for the tale proper.
quote:Halbarad wrote: I was making an assumption but then it occurred to me that the Witch-king was the "Lord of the Nazgul" only eight other beings, so....<shrug>
quote:TWH wrote: 'So who ever said there were seven balrogs at most?'
I already posted that Tolkien did (but in a bit more detail above), to which you already responded 'naturally...' and so on. I don't have my copy of MR handy at the moment, but if you want the actual quote it's likely somewhere here at MT already -- or search for words: 'Balrogs three or at most seven' on the Ynterweb.
Wikipedia currently cites part of the note...
quote: Wikipedia currently states: 'He quotes a very late margin note [17] that was not incorporated into the text saying "at most seven" ever existed; [18] though in the Annals of Aman, written as late as 1958, after the publication of The Lord of the Rings, Melkor still commands "a host of Balrogs"...'
Which might mistakenly imply that Annals of Aman is, in origin, a later 1950s work -- it's an early 1950s revision of the Annals of Valinor, although the Balrog note in question appears on a typescript copy of AAm made in the later 1950s according to CJRT -- thus the note cannot be earlier.
"How many Balrogs were there? A case can be made for three, seven, thirty-five, hundreds and thousands... but it is clear that they remained numerous from the earliest days of the mythology through the writing of The Lord of the Rings. Thereafter the answer must remain uncertain as even the 'last word' cannot be precisely determined.'
[ 03-11-2011, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: The White Hand ]
From: Memphis | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depend upon how one wants to characterize things within a conclusion: I think it would be accurate enough to say that Tolkien's last written idea (as far as we, or I, know today) is 'at most seven'.
This writing is a 'positive action', so to speak, where on the other hand, who knows what leaving already existing examples (as they read in the early 1950s) really indicates (by contrast a 'negative' in that something wasn't done).
Tolkien changing his mind again? as I say, 'possibly' (see below for examples of 'surviving' references), as far as that goes.
quote:"In the margin my father wrote: 'There should not be supposed more than say 3 or at most 7 ever existed.'" MR, Section 2 (AAm*) - note 50 just before Section 3
Conrad wrote: 'So, this then was the 'turning point'. Yet there is no way of knowing whether this idea of a limited number of Balrogs would have been retained. Given the difficulty in precisely dating these texts it is even possible that the Grey Annals (GA2) reference to 'Balrogs a thousand' post-dated the Annals of Aman note saying there were 'at most seven'. We thus have the possibly unique situation of a widely accepted point of Tolkien lore which is contradicted by every extant narrative writing on the subject, and indeed was only ever found in a single post-LotR marginal note.
With respect to the statement in bold, Conrad seems to say GA2 possibly post-dates the AAM note -- but according to Christopher Tolkien, Grey Annals (GA2) is an early 1950s work, while the note (at most seven) to AAm appears on a typescript made in the later 1950s. As far as I recall Tolkien did not write 'Balrogs a thousand' in 1958 or later, again he just never later altered this already written description for whatever reason.
That said I note Conrad's (AAm*) above: maybe he meant GA2 is possibly later than AAm*? Yet if so, as I read things, the marginal note ('at most seven') to section 50 is not to AAm* anyway, but rather to the amanuensis typescript of AAm (in the book note the star between AAm* and the 'typescript of the whole text' -- see p. 80).
CJRT refers to AAm* with respect to dating: 'There seems no way to determine with certainty when it was made, and I can only record my feeling that it belongs with the writing of the AAm manuscript rather than to some later time. At any rate my father soon abandoned it (see p. 80).' AAm* appears to end before section 50.
Perhaps Conrad's '(AAm*)' was just a general way to note where Tolkien's comment can be found in the book (as the star and the rest of the notes do follow 'just before Section 3'), but in any case, so far I would not agree that the marginal note was added to AAm* rather than to the 1958 typescript 'of the whole text'.
____________
Surviving references (examples), followed by the alterations made to The Silmarillion by Christopher Tolkien:
1: 'Wherefore each embassy came with greater force than was agreed, but Morgoth sent the greater, and they were Balrogs. Maidros was ambushed...' Of The Siege of Angband (Quenta Silmarillion) [] '... but Morgoth sent the more, and there were Balrogs.' Of The Return of the Noldor (The Silmarillion)
2: 'Sauron came against Orodreth, the warden of the tower, with a host of Balrogs.' Of the Ruin of Beleriand And the Fall of Fingolfin (Quenta Silmarillion) [] '... named Gorthaur, came against Orodreth, the warden of the tower upon Tol Sirion.' Of The Ruin Of Beleriand (The Silmarillion)
3: 'There came wolves and serpents, and there came Balrogs one thousand,...' Of the Fourth Battle: Nírnaith Arnediad (Quenta Silmarillion) [] 'There came wolves and wolfriders, and there came Balrogs, and dragons...' Of The Fifth Battle (The Silmarillion)
1 This description (from the QS tradition) survived into LQS despite a number of other post Lord of the Rings revisions to this chapter.
2 The second example (Orodreth and etc) also was not revised -- with Tolkien even altering §143 of the chapter, but not the 'host' of Balrogs passage.
3 The third example 'survived' too, but noting CJRT's description under The Last Chapters Of The Quenta Silmarillion, it looks like JRRT never really got around to truly revising this chapter in any case.
As noted, the Grey Annals contains 'Balrogs a thousand' §230, but nothing is noted as to any changes in the later 1950s.
posted
I found it most interesting that the balrog was originally written as a Nazgul; this would explain how the balrog got beneath Moria-- i.e. it was re-written in editing.
From: Memphis | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: I found it most interesting that the balrog was originally written as a Nazgul; this would explain how the balrog got beneath Moria
Most interesting indeed Although even at this time the remaining balrog(s) were already hidden in the deep places of the world. It seems the location of this particular deep place was shifted to beneath Moria during a rewrite but the concept was already in place.
I find the evolution of the story to be intriguing. How might the story have been effected (if at all) if it had remained a Nazgul in Moria. Certainly it provides a very clear and undeniable link between Moria and Mordor.
From: northern hemisphere-ish | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that original place was Moria as we came to know it; for a Nazgul wouldn't be likely to be "Durin's Bane," to explain the absence of the Dwarves re-entering it despite defeating the goblins. Nor would a Dwarf-made stone bridge-- particularly a "last defense" over a bottomless chasm-- be likely the "crack and fall" under the weight of two men wrestling on it. Rather, as we saw, the was able to withstand the weight of a balrog jumping on it, and it was only broken by a supernatural force of Gandalf's staff breaking.
Rather, this underground passage seemed to be Goblin-town, or something similar.
Likewise, Gandalf seemed to be much weaker-- or the Nazgul much stronger-- than they each ended up, if a single Nazgul could wrestle Gandalf; as we ultimately saw at the Council of Elrond, Gandalf drove all nine of the Nazgul before him, before they returned and ambushed him at Weathertop. Tolkien eventually wrote that the Nazgul had no great power against those who didn't fear them-- and this would include Gandalf, since their power of fear was mainly in a mortal's irrational fear of death; and Gandalf wasn't mortal.
Rather, this was the original course of the story, back when Strider was a hobbit named "Trotter."
It's also unlikely that the Nazgul would follow the Fellowship into Moria, since they'd have to leave their horses outside, as they couldn't take even a pony through it; if the Fellowship reached the bridge, that would mean that the Nazgul would either have to live there, or would have to follow them for 2 days on foot-- which, again, was impossible if he brought his horse with him. Meanwhile Goblin-town clearly showed ponies being stolen and led inside, so the Nazgul could have brought his horse with him there.
I'm also confused as to when Gandalf passed through Moria prior to "Fellowship," when The Hobbit showed him passing through Goblin-town to cross under the Misty Mountains; this would have been a good deal safer than Moria and "Durin's Bane."
As for the link between Moria and Mordor, they were both under the control of fugitives from the War of Wrath-- i.e. the balrog and Sauron, respectively; so it's likely that they'd have some relationship, particularly since Sauron was Morgoth's lieutenant. At Erebor, the Nazgul claimed that Sauron could restore Moria to the Dwarves. Also, Moria was the source of mithril, which Sauron coveted; so he'd want to definitely use the balrog to control Moria.
[ 03-16-2011, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: The White Hand ]
From: Memphis | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think that original place was Moria as we came to know it; for a Nazgul wouldn't be likely to be "Durin's Bane,"
Agreed, it certainly wouldn't be a like-for-like type swap between the balrog and Nazgul, big changes would be necessary. Do you happen to know the source of the Nazgul in Moria stuff? Some HoME violume I'd imagine.
quote: As for the link between Moria and Mordor, they were both under the control of fugitives from the War of Wrath-- i.e. the balrog and Sauron, respectively; so it's likely that they'd have some relationship,
Perhaps, but it doesn't appear to be a very strong relationship such as some sort of alliance. It's hard to put much stock in the Nazgul's words at Erebor, it was most likely nothing more than empty promises in an attempt to get at Bilbo. The thing that has always made me question the balrog/Sauron link is what you alluded to, the mithril. It's no secret that Sauron coveted mithril, possibly more than anything other than the One. If Sauron had a good working relationship with the balrog it would stand to reason he'd have found a way to put a mining crew or two to work in the depths of Moria. Can't imagine what the balrog would need it for and I've never read that balrogs possessed the same tendancy to hoard as the dragons; so if the balrog viewed Sauron as an ally of sorts, why wouldn't he make a deal? Their relationship seems more akin to that of Sauron/Smaug. Smaug and the balrog were beings that Sauron could likely make use of even if he didn't actually have any real control over them.
From: northern hemisphere-ish | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Madomir Can't imagine what the balrog would need it for and I've never read that balrogs possessed the same tendancy to hoard as the dragons; so if the balrog viewed Sauron as an ally of sorts, why wouldn't he make a deal? Their relationship seems more akin to that of Sauron/Smaug. Smaug and the balrog were beings that Sauron could likely make use of even if he didn't actually have any real control over them.
Gandalf seemed to be of the opinion that Smaug could have used as far as Eriador but I doubt it. If Dragons are so greedy nothing could coax Smaug to fly so far from his Big Pile for so long, and he would suspect treachery and looting on the part of Sauron or the Easterlings. Smaug could have been bribed to attack Thranduil nigh at hand though, and that would at least remove the only real obstacle left in the North.
But Sauron had nothing to offer Durin's Bane, a fellow Maia, and after Morgoth's fall he couldn't really "pull rank" on him any more either. IMHO.
Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact is that the balrog was in no position to make demands, being a fugitive from justice, hiding from the Valar, and fearful of discovery-- so much even, that he feared to leave Moria even to help Azog's army, but rather was hiding inside the door, watching the battle from within the safety of Moria-- as Daín saw, when he looked inside after killing Azog. Clearly the Balrog had an alliance with Azog, since he allowed them to live there in Moria with him-- so why not Sauron?
So Sauron held all the cards, having an established army in Middle-Earth, and roaming it freely-- and he was a master and ruthless manipulator "able to gain by craft when force would not avail." The balrog also knew that was good for Sauron, was good for him as well: since if Sauron fell, then the Balrog knew that he would be next. And again, Sauron was Melkor's lieutenant; so the balrog would already know and have a prior relationship with Sauron, having taken orders from him in the past. And now that Melkor was removed, then Sauron would be the balrog's leader-- remember that he originally joined Melkor seeking power over the world; and now he was alone, cowering in darkness. So he was clearly afraid, and Sauron was the most powerful ally he had-- indeed, the only ally he had, once Azog was destroyed.
So Sauron offered the balrog 2 things he wanted: 1) power over others, and 2) "protection--" from himself and from enemies; just like he did with everyone else.
This also brings up a question: why did he want to stop the Fellowship from leaving Moria? Did he, like Saruman, know that the Ring was carried by a halfling, and want to capture him? If so, he could only have learned this from Sauron, and would be doing Sauron's bidding.
As for Smaug: you think Gandalf was an idiot, mounting a year-long expedition for nothing? Remember that the dragons were bred by Meklor, and were also commanded by Sauron in the past; so Sauron would know how to control and manipulate them as well-- perhaps even threatening to send the balrog after Smaug if he didn't cooperate, while promising him all the Elven gems if he did. The Nazgul could likewise rob Smaug of some of his treasure, being invisible and invulnerable and all.
[ 03-18-2011, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: The White Hand ]
From: Memphis | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
![[]](icons/icon7.gif){kind=icon}
![[]](icons/icon14.gif){kind=icon}
Although even at this time the remaining balrog(s) were already hidden in the deep places of the world. It seems the location of this particular deep place was shifted to beneath Moria during a rewrite but the concept was already in place. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
