"the Hobbit, an odd question." Topic

After watching the new Hobbit movie, an odd thought occurred : who would win in a fight between smaug and the balrog ?

Opinions ?

Phil

Interesting question. Dragons were slain by elves and ancient heroes, and even in more "modern" times by one of the Rohirrim (Scatha the Worm, IIRC), or by a well aimed shot from Bard, so it COULD be done. Killing balrogs (whose nature changes somewhat throughout the canon), on the other hand, seems to take a Glorfindel or a Gandalf, and even then they are also killed in the process (and sent back, in those cases). Given that, I'd guess the balrog.

Doug

At least in the books, Smaug got taken out by an arrow in the belly.
Gandalf's Balrog needed … Gandalf to take him out.

My money is on "the" Balrog. Balrogs in the past, however, could be taken on a half dozen at a time by an elf. AN ELF!!!

Ja – balrogs got significantly bad-assier as Tolkien developed the idea, and went from being the cannon fodder of Thangarodrim to being few and far between.

Doug

Maybe that's because the Elves killed all the non bad-ass ones? :)

-Will

The fall of Gondolin was prefaced by an onslaught of Dragons driven on by the whips of the Balrogs.

If Dragons were tougher than Balrogs they'd have turned around and kicked their asses !

So – Balrog every time.

In D&D Dragons ate Balrogs for breakfast, the older, tougher dragons anyway.

Perhaps we should have an 'Epic Rap Battle of History' between Smaug and the Balrog to find out.

Deadliest warrior ?

Depends if Jackson is directing it. It'll take three movies to decide it…

I sense a SOBH Batrep coming on…

Matthew McConaughey takes out both. However, the new question would be "who wins the Matthew McConaughey vs Christian Bale contest for ultimate supremacy…

I agree with the Old Fat Man's reasoning.

It is mentioned in various places and ways in the Tolkien canon that the Elves of the First Age (as well as the first men)--esp those first generations who marched across Middle Earth to Valinor, were more powerful. Fingolfin or Turin or others were certainly more capable of taking on a dragon than later wood elves or "modern" figures.

Balrogs were supposed to be, I thought, of the Maia who followed Morgoth, therefore of the same level as the Istari such as Gandalf. Certainly more powerful than dragons.

Gandalf only fought the balrog because he had to. When it came to Smaug, he conveniently found other tasks that needed attending. :)

I see we are all in agreement, then!

You know, I don't think it was the Black Arrow that killed Smaug, but the water. Bard manages to wound him and the great worm immediately loses control while writhing in pain, which sends him plunging into the Long Lake (and Esgaroth, since it lied between point A and point B). The water pretty much puts him out of his misery. It was in fact alluded to earlier in the chapter that between Smaug and the lake, the lake would ultimately win.

Amazing what a fresh re-reading will bring.

The lame response is that it depends on the individual balrog or dragon but in the spirit of giving a more specific general answer I would say in the First Age Dragon over Balrog and I would have to know more about the dragons of later ages. My reasoning:

1. Morgoth already had Balrogs in his forces. When he wanted to improve them he added Dragons.

2. Even when it was young Glaurung was so deadly everybody retreated before it (including the son's of Feanor amongst the mightiest of the elves of the First Age) and it took the Dwarvish army to wound it.

3. It wasn't just Gandalf and Glorfindel (earlier 1st age Glorfindel)who killed Balrogs. Ecthelion and I believe others killed some as well.

4. Only one Balrog survived Morgoths fall. Multiple dragons did.

5. Dragons continued their evil ways destroying Dwarf holds out in the open after Morgoths fall. The Balrog hid in fear under a mountain chain and only grew a pair after the goblins of Moria shamed him into action.

If you consider the evidence, even a little bit, it isn't even close.

Gandalf also was tired -- he specifically bemoans it -- when he meets the balrog in Moria -- and then won anyway. They were the same sort of creature -- incarnate angels, basically -- so one would think at least in the same league. I'd put the dragons in a higher league, hence Gandalf's reliance on, in effect, provoking "destiny" to destroy Smaug.

Tolkien also acknowledged there were some dragons bigger than others. Don't know if age leads to more size and strength for them, or aching shoulder joints and a desire to just sleep in your pile of gold.

If we're going to set up cage matches, maybe we need height and weight ranges?

In the red corner, weighing 2000 tons….

I think the comparison of First Age to Third Age isn't a fair one. Dragons and the Balrog seemed to have grown in power and size, while the elves were stated as declining in power.

Depends if Jackson is directing it. It'll take three movies to decide it…

Didn't Jackson already do that scene in King Kong?

In the 3d age (the age Hobbit & LOTR are set)- I think the balrog comes out on top hardly breaking a sweat

which raises the question if Gandalf beats balrog and balrog beats dragon

- why doesn't Gandalf just take care of Dragon himself without a bunch of bumbling dwarves & a hobbit to worry about

Ja – balrogs got significantly bad-assier as Tolkien developed the idea, and went from being the cannon fodder of Thangarodrim to being few and far between.

I think the balrogs in the earlier ages were younger and less powerful – after all Sauron himself wasn't 'all that' in the 1st age & I think the elves were bad-assier in the earlier ages too – at least the elf heroes of legend

Sauron was actually purty damn powerful in the 1st Age. He bested An Elf King (Finrod) Mano a mano or elfo a elfo or noldo a noldo or whatever the saying would be. If we are positing that elf heroes were more powerful way back then we gotsta take the bad with the good. I still want to see the evidence or reasoning behind ranking Balrogs over Dragons. In the parlance of young lovers everywhere I showed you mine now show me yours. Not supposition, but citation to Tolkien.

There is no citation from Tolkien, he was often inconsistent and occasionally contradictory to himself.

My take:

Balrogs are scarier, but dragons are cooler— err, hotter— err, "awesomer."

(There's clearly a disconnect between modern slang and classic fantasy…)

I agree he was both on many things. As to the relative power of Balrogs and Dragons, which, while never specifically addressed, there is evidence of in his works I am unaware of any inconsistency. Dragons appear superior. One last bit of evidence. At the last battle where the Valar have finally gotten off their asses an gone to kick Morgoth's butt there was a reference to Morgoths huge army. It was so gigantic that the plain outside his citadel couldn't contain it. Right after this description appears the line "But it availed him not. The Balrogs were destroyed, save some few that fled…" A paragraph later he releases his dragons and so "ruinous was the onset of that dreadful fleet that the host of the Valar was driven back…" Nuff said. Peace, Out. <drops microphone>

As the computer on the classic Star Trek to used to say, "insufficient data."

This turns into one of those nerdy arguments about who is tougher Thor or the Hulk? Based upon what we have per the movies or the books I would say it would depend on who was having the better day, the dragon or the balrog? Either way you would not want to be near the fight regardless.

Now from the point of view of say a D&D universe I think it again is a toss up if we are talking an older dragon and an..erm..Balor. The balor could summon more demons to help if pride would allow in case the dragon was getting the upper hand. Again, regardless, you would not want to be in the area.

Balrog goes to Wal-Mart, buys an arrow, paints it black… battle over!

Balrog goes to Wal-Mart, buys an arrow, paints it black, pulls out his bow, attempts to nock an arrow and draw it back, notices that the bow, bowstring, and arrow have all turned to ash because of theses damned inconvenient wreaths of flames. Balrog quickly looks around for a mountain to hide under. Smaug, a creature that can quite literally burp flames, is not inconvenienced at all and turns one of Morgoth's last surviving veterans into dragon poo.

Wasn't the Balrog actually made of fire? If so it would seem that dragon fire would be useless against him (or her0.
And the Balrog was able to wield weapons.

Balrog in a TKO.

It's not the immolation that gets the Balrog it's the mastication.

It is discussed at least in the various unfinished tales that Gandalf and the Istari were not supposed to flash/use their powers in Middle earth but instead were to push and nudge things along.

Like most things success is best quantified in monetary terms. The Balrog didn't have any gold, while Smaug amassed a dwarven stronghold's worth of gold. Therefore the dragon is clearly the winner.

RR

I think the Balrog wins, demi-god entity vs large lizard.

(Of course it may depend on the Balrog having wings or not)

Regards

David F Brown

About Smaug.

link

Amicalement
Armand

Dragons.

Fisherking provided the best reasons in his first post, using actual "facts" from Tolkienian literature and not just subjective guessing (which is fun too).
A standard Balrog might be able to take out a lesser Worm but wouldn't have much of a chance against a dragon like Glaurung, or even Smaug. Balrogs were quite common in some of the massive battles of the 1st age, and many of them were slain. Dragons were rarer, nastier, and more epic.

Here's another match up; the sire of all dragons (Glaurung) versus the mother of all spiders (Ungoliant the black)?

Peter Jackson, if you are reading this, isn't it about time you started working on the Silmarillion films? Put that mince pie down and get to work!

If I recall, wasnt even Morgoth afraid to take on ungoliant ? If so, I would give her the edge over Glaurung.

Phil