Suggestions for a wingless balrog?

[Hobgoblin]

I've been painting up the old Ral Partha Hekatron giant as a balrog. It'll do the job, I reckon, and I'm not overly concerned by details like a flail instead of a whip. The description of the balrog in LotR is vague - "man shape, maybe, only greater" (from memory). It has a mane, it's bigger than a man and it's surrounded by darkness ("shadow"). But beyond that, all else is interpretation.

I don't believe that JRRT intended the balrog to have bat-like wings or to fly - the much-discussed "shadow/like wings/wings/shadow" sequence seems to me to indicate that this was just the darkness that enveloped it. And then there's the fact that Gandalf planned to defeat it by breaking the bridge beneath it. Nor do hooves, horns and tusks feature in the description. So, Hekatron giant aside, what other miniatures might suggest themselves as (wingless) balrogs?

[Digitarii]

Reaper has a wonderful "Fire Demon" that would work well by simply leaving off the wings and horns.

[Captain Blood]

I agree Hobgoblin. The Balrog in the book doesn't have wings.
The original Minifigs 'Mythical Earth' range Balrog (circa 1975) was spot on. It basically looked like the Cowardly Lion from The Wizard of Oz, but holding a whip 

[Hobgoblin]

Reaper has a wonderful "Fire Demon" that would work well by simply leaving off the wings and horns.

Thanks! The Bob Olley one? I like that one, but the larger, skull-faced one with the big horns is a bit overblown for my tastes (it's also a bit close to the film balrog, which I really dislike). Both, though, have hooved goat-legs, which is another element I'm trying to avoid.

The best illustrations of balrogs, to my mind, are in the Tolkien Bestiary (a book with awful text but superb pictures). I really like the Ian Miller one and the John Blanche ones glimpsed in the distance in his Fall of Gondolin.

[Hobgoblin]

I agree Hobgoblin. The Balrog in the book doesn't have wings.
The original Minifigs 'Mythical Earth' range Balrog (circa 1975) was spot on. It basically looked like the Cowardly Lion from The Wizard of Oz, but holding a whip 

Yup. I think it's one of these arguments that people tend to come into with preconceptions based on interpretations of the book in other media. It's a bit like the assumption that the Uruk-hai are as tall as Men (because all kinds of "secondary sources" have said so - even though the book itself makes it plain that they're not). For decades, most interpreters and illustrators have shown the Balrog as a rather conventional winged demon, so that has stuck.

That Minifigs Balrog would actually do the job nicely, I think, although I bet it's a bit small by modern standards. The kind of "paint your own detail" approach that early miniatures encourage would be perfect for something as vaguely described as the Balrog. It has a mane, a sword and a whip, and that's really all that's needed.

[Captain Blood]

I wish I still had mine.
Ah, innocent, happy days... 

[orc]

I like Mithril Balrog without wings!!!!

[Charlie_]

Are the Balrogs not described as flying in the Silmarillion?

I haven't got it to hand, and no doubt my memory is hazy, but I seem to remember they all fly to the rescue of their master Morgoth when he's having a little trouble with a certain giant spider friend. But of course flying doesn't have to mean wings. And my memory might be completely wrong!

[Hobgoblin]

Are the Balrogs not described as flying in the Silmarillion?

I haven't got it to hand, and no doubt my memory is hazy, but I seem to remember they all fly to the rescue of their master Morgoth when he's having a little trouble with a certain giant spider friend. But of course flying doesn't have to mean wings. And my memory might be completely wrong!

I think the passage you're thinking of is this one:

"Far beneath the halls of Angband, in vaults to which the Valar in the haste of their assault had not descended, the Balrogs lurked still, awaiting ever the return of their Lord. Swiftly they arose, and they passed with winged speed over Hithlum, and they came to Lammoth as a tempest of fire."
The Later Quenta Silmarillion II

The trouble is, that sort of Biblical-sounding language is used elsewhere by Tolkien, in contexts where it's clear that no flight was involved.

There is also this in the Appendices of LotR:

"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."

But it pretty clearly means "fleeing" there (Tolkien often uses "fly" in this archaic sense - as in "Fly, you fools!"), as the context is one of escape and hiding (from the Host of the West, which had defeated Morgoth). Later in the same appendix, for example, we get this:

"For he saw that all his host in the valley was in a rout, and the Dwarves went this way and that slaying as they would, and those that could escape from them were flying south, shrieking as they ran." ("Those" are Orcs, which presumably lack wings!)

Now, of course, Tolkien's conception of Balrogs evolved. In some of his earlier writings, it's very clear that the Balrogs don't fly (they don't fly over the walls of Gondolin, for example). That could have changed. But it's notable that Balrogs seem to fall quite a lot without flying (Gothmog, for example, and the Moria Balrog - not only when Gandalf breaks the bridge, but when he kills it by throwing it down on the mountainside.

The other thing that I always find very convincing here is the fact that the sequence of description of the Balrog's "shadow" (the darkness enveloping it) goes like this:

1. "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 go before it."

2. "It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it."

3. "For a moment the orcs quailed and the fiery shadow halted."

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

5. "The Balrog made no answer. 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."

6. "From out of the shadow a red sword leaped flaming."

7. "With a terrible cry the Balrog fell forward, and its shadow plunged down and vanished."

To me, 5, when read with the rest and with 4 and 7 particularly, indicate that the "wings" are just the shadow stretched out on either side of it. It's worth remembering that the cavern is huge, so to stretch from wall to wall, the "wings" must have a span of a hundred, if not hundreds, of feet (the chasm must be much longer than the 50' bridge that spans its width).

All that said, I love the old solid-based Citadel Balrog (standing upright with its sword and whip on the ground) and am very keen to get hold of one.

It strikes me that the old Tom Meier giant troll champion would make a great Gothmog (who, if memory serves, fought with a black axe).

Both are shown here. I have neither, but remember both well from friends' collections in my childhood.

[Captain Blood]

Once again, to me, your interpretation of the text is quite right.

It all just goes to show that in his epic, mythic, quasi-biblical descriptions of all sorts of creatures, demons, races and factions, Tolkien was generally pretty vague and non-specific about precise details of appearance...

It's the vast, multi-million dollar industry of Tolkien interpreters and tribute acts - artists, filmmakers, games designers, and more - who are largely responsible for the accepted visual orthodoxy around the appearance of all things from Tolkien's works.
He hardly ever describes anything in great detail, because - it strikes me - he wasn't really all that interested in the detailed appearance of things (there are exceptions of course). He was mainly interested in sweeping, poetic language that elevated his themes and characters to the sublime. And like many artists was content to invite his audience to fill in the details from their own imaginations. Unfortunately, what's happened over time, is that a lot of very talented, creative people with very good imaginations have filled in the details for everyone else. And their interpretations become 'the one truth'...

Twas ever thus with adaptations of literature into other media.
I doubt, for instance, that the de rigeur look of all TV and filmic adaptations Dickens, is exactly what Dickens had in mind. But it's now so immovably baked-into the popular psyche, it's never going to change. (Yes, there's another 20 part Dickens adaptation, mashing-up various characters from various of his novels, on the way shortly. Looks gorgeous. And looks exactly the same as all preceding Dickens adaptations... Would be nice to see something slightly different, just for once...  )

[Booboo]

Once again, to me, your interpretation of the text is quite right.

It all just goes to show that in his epic, mythic, quasi-biblical descriptions of all sorts of creatures, demons, races and factions, Tolkien was generally pretty vague and non-specific about precise details of appearance...

Tolkiens steely-eyes can't hide this inner frown at your shenanigans. 

I'd love to see more conversions of wingless Balrog figures

[Hobgoblin]

Once again, to me, your interpretation of the text is quite right.

It all just goes to show that in his epic, mythic, quasi-biblical descriptions of all sorts of creatures, demons, races and factions, Tolkien was generally pretty vague and non-specific about precise details of appearance...

It's the vast, multi-million dollar industry of Tolkien interpreters and tribute acts - artists, filmmakers, games designers, and more - who are largely responsible for the accepted visual orthodoxy around the appearance of all things from Tolkien's works.
He hardly ever describes anything in great detail, because - it strikes me - he wasn't really all that interested in the detailed appearance of things (there are exceptions of course). He was mainly interested in sweeping, poetic language that elevated his themes and characters to the sublime. And like many artists was content to invite his audience to fill in the details from their own imaginations. Unfortunately, what's happened over time, is that a lot of very talented, creative people with very good imaginations have filled in the details for everyone else. And their interpretations become 'the one truth'...

Twas ever thus with adaptations of literature into other media.
I doubt, for instance, that the de rigeur look of all TV and filmic adaptations Dickens, is exactly what Dickens had in mind. But it's now so immovably baked-into the popular psyche, it's never going to change. (Yes, there's another 20 part Dickens adaptation, mashing-up various characters from various of his novels, on the way shortly. Looks gorgeous. And looks exactly the same as all preceding Dickens adaptations... Would be nice to see something slightly different, just for once...  )

Very good points. And of course, there's nothing wrong with interpretations that differ widely or even wildly from the text of any given work. But it's always more interesting to see ones that go in new directions rather than cliched ones.

[Spooktalker]

Here's are a couple suggestions if you're up for a bit of conversion:






Nightwalker Vs. Nightwalker by John Morey, on Flickr

They are D&D prepaint nightwalkers.

Even the smaller one is of very goodly height and you could pretty easily switch out the hands and add mane.

I actually got mine intending to make a AD&D 1e balor out of him, which would involve wings and face etc. Making a wingless balrog should be easier! Now I might do this myself as I'm collecting forces for 28mm LOTR at the moment.

[Hobgoblin]

Here's are a couple suggestions if you're up for a bit of conversion:


They are D&D prepaint nightwalkers.

Even the smaller one is of very goodly height and you could pretty easily switch out the hands and add mane.

I actually got mine intending to make a AD&D 1e balor out of him, which would involve wings and face etc. Making a wingless balrog should be easier! Now I might do this myself as I'm collecting forces for 28mm LOTR at the moment.

That's an excellent suggestion - thanks! The smaller one would probably work best. What these have (and what the Hekatron giant doesn't) is the suggestion of agility; Balrogs seem to be lithe, leaping creatures in much of Tolkien's conception, which fits with their fiery nature. And the vagueness of the features is perfect.

[Spooktalker]

That's an excellent suggestion - thanks! The smaller one would probably work best. What these have (and what the Hekatron giant doesn't) is the suggestion of agility; Balrogs seem to be lithe, leaping creatures in much of Tolkien's conception, which fits with their fiery nature. And the vagueness of the features is perfect.

You're welcome, I'll hope to see your treatment up on the forum!