Melkor vs. other Vala?

[Darth Angelus]

I have been discussing Melkor's power on Tolkien forums before, and in particular compared him to the Vala champion Tulkas, who seems to have caused him quite a bit of trouble in battle. This generated an argument about exactly how mighty Melkor was compared to the rest of his breathren.

The evidence that Melkor was the (overall) greatest Vala is unambigous. He had a share in the gifts of every other Vala. If you are reading this, I assume you have read The Silmarillion, so I won't bother to look up the exact quote, but that is in essence what it says.

In the first war, before Arda was fully formed, Melkor fought the other Valar, and at first, he had the upper hand. That was, until Tulkas entered Arda, and he fled.
Here is where my opinion starts to differ from that of Melkor fans, who claim Tulkas was not really stronger than Melkor, but rather (just) the straw that broke the camel's back. True, it could be, in a sense (that would include Melkor's forces).

First of all, if there was a war between Melkor and the other Valar and the lesser Ainur known as Maiar already existed (which they did) they would be involved in this war as well. Some of them would have joined Melkor, but not all. So the war between Melkor and the Valar would have been a war between Melkor + his Maia forces and the Valar + their Maia forces. Talking about a war against a single person, in normal language, doesn't mean that person is alone to fight for their cause. Melkor's great powers could very well sway a large scale battle between Ainur and Ainur, and this is how I would guess it went down.
However, some seemed to claim he fought all the thirteen other Vala (15 - Melkor - Tulkas) combined on his own. The replies I got implied his might was so great that he could hold thirteen off, and even get the upper hand.

I don't know how to begin to describe how strange, almost hilarious, I find this assertion. One Vala vs. thirteen. Sure, he has greater overall power than any of the others individually, but thirteen? I simply cannot suspend my disbelief enough to buy that they were THAT MUCH WEAKER. Some of them had powers similar to his. Melkor twisted elves into orcs ((re)shaping life), while Aüle and Yavanna made the dwarves and ents respectively (shaping life). For pretty much every impressive (to a (demi)godlike level) feat of creation or shaping the world Melkor did, another Vala was able to do something on a fairly equal order of magnitude. He wasn't able to create independent life, either, making him no greater power than any other Vala in that regard.
Yes, he was the greatest Vala, because he had the gifts in all Vala fields (although a "share", which is not necessarily greater than the specialized Vala), and he may very well have had the greatest overall spiritual power. However, to suggest that his power alone matched thirteen Vala combined??? That might push the second greatest Vala down to around 10-20% of Melkor's power (depending on how other Vala vary)*. In my not very humble opinion, we are not really talking about Melkor being another Vala (even the greatest one) here, but rather another type of being entirely. The only being that might be able to pull that off would be Eru.
No seriously, Melkor fought the other Valar on his own and only after the fourteenth came was the camel's back broken?


As for how strong he was compared to Tulkas the Vala champion, it is hard to say. He did lose the only one vs one fight they had while wrestling in Utumno, suggesting that Tulkas is physically stronger, at least. Some Melkor fans claim that Melkor would have won in armed combat, but if so, did he not have the chance to grab a weapon in his own fortress before facing Tulkas?
Here is the thing, having the greatest overall power does not equate to having the greatest combat power. There are many powers in a Fantasy world that would be counted into overall power, without having any useful combat application **. That is why the oversimplistic logic "Melkor > Tulkas" doesn't work as a reliable prediction of the outcome of a fight between the two.
One character can have significantly less power than another and still have the upper hand as far as combat goes, if they are made specifically to take the other guy down, and Tulkas does indeed seem to serve little purpose save to fight Melkor. Besides, if combat power was linearly proportional to overall power in Tolkien's works, then Tulkas would hardly have been sent to fight Melkor at all, seeing as there were eight Aratar (exalted Valar), all of whom had greater overall power than Tulkas.

I do not know if Tulkas would always win a fair fight with Melkor. However, from what I can tell from The Silmarillion, assuming that Tulkas is an overall better combatant than Melkor creates far fewer logical problems with the existing evidence than the opposite assumption, as I see it, and I prefer to go with the theory thay best explains the existing evidence.
I am not going into Tolkien's notes, because they are not part of a finished work, and may create more story incoherence if taken fully into account.


* I would say that suggesting that Manwë - the Vala king and Melkor's brother - would be below 70-80% of Melkor in overall spiritual power is pushing it.

** How do you fight an enemy with the power to twist elves into orcs, for example?

 

[Darth Angelus]

Basically, I think power arguments in fiction sometimes become ludicrous like this, because they boil down to some semantics game equivocating on the word "power". There is no one single power in fiction, just a combined set of skills, strengths and abilities for the individual characters, all of which might be summarized to an overall whole among the readers/viewers. However, this "overall whole" may not be a reliable prediction of the outcome of some contest, if that contest measures only some of the abilities counted into this "overall power" (such as combat), or even if the contest measures all included abilities in other proportions.

 

[River Boy]

For myself, I think Tolkien makes it quite clear that Tulkas would defeat Melkor in battle.

As for the other Valar I don't know, but I think the most important point missed in your posts is what happens to the world when the powers go to war. When Treebeard sings about 'Now all those lands lie under the wave' he's referring to the ruin of Beleriand because of the final war waged by the Valar against Melkor. Surely it's the likelihood of war reshaping the world once again that keeps the Valar away from conflict as they mourn all that Melkor has done with the world since it was formed, not the question of whether they can bring him down which they always succeed in doing when attempting, only at a precious cost.

Also I agree that the term 'power' can mean many things here. There's one chapter of the Silmarilion where I recall Tulkas can't find Melkor who has changed shape. Like with the wizards in The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien sees those who battle with wisdom as being far more powerful than the strength of the warrior, and Melkor's only possible equal in wisdom is Manwe.

 

[Darth Angelus]

River Boy, I think we pretty much agree on everything here.

I don't really think I "missed" what happens when the powers go to war, though. I didn't think of mentioning it, true, but that is mostly because it doesn't greatly affect my main point, even though I agree that it is related to it.
Actually, I think it works quite fine with my position. The Valar, unlike Melkor, cared about the damage that was done to the world when they waged war, so they were very strongly reluctant to do so. Clearly, they were somewhat handcuffed by this, but that is how good characters always are, and must be, somewhat handcuffed by various moral concerns (like collateral damage) compared to the evil characters, who typically wouldn't be worried about any damage except when it is to them or their own plans.

I am certainy not denying that the powers in battle does severe damage to Arda. This is merely a response to various fans who doubt Tulkas could defeat Melkor in his prime, strength-wise, damage to the world aside.

I also agree that those who battle with wisdom are considered far more powerful than the warrior, and in the larger scope of things, they are obviously more influential (looking at dark lords and wizards). Clearly, Tulkas goes way beyond excelling at just beating enemies in battle, but he is limited to this, which means he will not be counted among the greater Valar.

 

[ares834]

Sorry that I am bumping this old thread but I found it on a Google search and decided to reply.

The notion that Melkor is as a great as the rest of the Valar combined comes from Tolkien himself. In HoME X Morgoth's Ring, Tolkien writes an essay on how Melkor dispersed his power into Arda effectively causing it to become his "ring".

Here Tolkien mentions that Melkor is as great than the rest of the Valar combined. "Later, he (Melkor) must not be able to be controlled or 'chained' by all the Valar combined. Note that in the early age of Arda he was alone able to drive the Valar out of Middle-earth into retreat." Notice how he mentions that Melkor is alone and does not have his armies of Maiar helping him yet. In the published Silmarillion, it is not until he has fled Arda that he gathers his spirits.

That Melkor was as mighty as the rest of the Valar combined would also help explain why they were weary to make war upon him. Indeed, according to Tolkien, "The war against Utumno was only undertaken by the Valar with reluctance, and without hope of real victory, but rather as a covering action or diversion, to enable them to get the Quendi out of his sphere of influence." Yet, at that time, unbeknownst to the Valar, Melkor was far weaker than he initially was. "But Melkor had already progressed some way towards becoming 'the Morgoth, a tyrant (or central tyranny and will), + his agents'.(2) Only the total contained the old power of the complete Melkor; so that if 'the Morgoth' could be reached or temporarily separated from his agents he was much more nearly controllable and on a power-level with the Valar." In fact at that time he was less powerful than Manwe ("he has now less personal force than Manwe) and of course physically inferior to Tulkas.

 

[thaddeus6th]

That does make me wonder why Melkor frittered his power away. Why not obliterate the other Valar and then remake the world in his image?

 

[HareBrain]

Why not obliterate the other Valar and then remake the world in his image?

His reasoning might be that such a course would give Eru a reason to scrap the whole thing and start again, whereas staking out a massive kingdom for himself leaves enough of the original design intact for Eru to stay out of it. But it's been ages since I read the Silmarillion, and I don't know if this logic conflicts with anything in it (or in other books).

 

[thaddeus6th]

Been a while since I read it too, but my memory is that Eru basically did sod all once the world was established and the Valar went down there. Maybe he sent Tulkas down, but I think that was Tulkas' own initiative.

 

[HareBrain]

He did cause the bending of the world at the end of the Second Age (so Valinor could no longer be reached by ship), handily destroying Numenor in the process.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Really? I recall the destruction, but thought that was the Valar.

Does make me wonder why he left the Valar to sort out might Melkor, and then only intervened when Sauron was giving gifts.

 

[Darth Angelus]

Sorry that I am bumping this old thread but I found it on a Google search and decided to reply.

The notion that Melkor is as a great as the rest of the Valar combined comes from Tolkien himself. In HoME X Morgoth's Ring, Tolkien writes an essay on how Melkor dispersed his power into Arda effectively causing it to become his "ring".

Here Tolkien mentions that Melkor is as great than the rest of the Valar combined. "Later, he (Melkor) must not be able to be controlled or 'chained' by all the Valar combined. Note that in the early age of Arda he was alone able to drive the Valar out of Middle-earth into retreat." Notice how he mentions that Melkor is alone and does not have his armies of Maiar helping him yet. In the published Silmarillion, it is not until he has fled Arda that he gathers his spirits.

That Melkor was as mighty as the rest of the Valar combined would also help explain why they were weary to make war upon him. Indeed, according to Tolkien, "The war against Utumno was only undertaken by the Valar with reluctance, and without hope of real victory, but rather as a covering action or diversion, to enable them to get the Quendi out of his sphere of influence." Yet, at that time, unbeknownst to the Valar, Melkor was far weaker than he initially was. "But Melkor had already progressed some way towards becoming 'the Morgoth, a tyrant (or central tyranny and will), + his agents'.(2) Only the total contained the old power of the complete Melkor; so that if 'the Morgoth' could be reached or temporarily separated from his agents he was much more nearly controllable and on a power-level with the Valar." In fact at that time he was less powerful than Manwe ("he has now less personal force than Manwe) and of course physically inferior to Tulkas.

No worries.

I suppose Morgoth's Ring may give some clarity to how Tolkien intended this. I have not read anything beyond The Silmarillion, so I cannot claim to be a true Tolkien scholar. What I wrote in my initial post was just my impression from what I have read, and I am certainly willing to modify it a bit, when presented with information that is new to me.
It is just that Melkor always came off as physically inferior to Tulkas in The Silmarillion, even in the first war, and that was before Melkor had has too much time to expend his power, it seems.

 

[Narkalui]

His reasoning might be that such a course would give Eru a reason to scrap the whole thing and start again, whereas staking out a massive kingdom for himself leaves enough of the original design intact for Eru to stay out of it. But it's been ages since I read the Silmarillion, and I don't know if this logic conflicts with anything in it (or in other books).

I've always interpreted the narrative as that Illuvatar Eru has a plan of which even Melkor (and his actions) is a part. Gandalf tells Frodo that Bilbo was supposed to find the ring. Gandalf is explaining that he knows Illuvatar has a plan. He doesn't know what the plan is but he knows it is there and he has faith in it.

My point is that Melkor is unwittingly doing Eru's bidding and carrying out His plan which all the Ainur saw and then forgot in their first Music.

So therefore all the actions in Tolkien 's works, from Manwe's greatest gesture down to the movement of Fatty Bolger's little finger is all pre-ordained and planned by Eru the One.

 

[Bick]

Whenever I see these kinds of discussions, of which Valar or Maia would defeat which, and surely these people would have helped, etc, it makes me think that the readers don't entirely 'get' Tolkien. The Silmarillion was written to record an invented mythology, to be read perhaps as one might read classical mythology such as The Odyssey or Illiad, or perhaps works like Beowulf. It wasn't expected that descriptions of wars and contests of strength would necessarily stand up to a sort of D&D numerical analysis; it was supposed to be more like prose poetry than a gaming manual... I suspect that if Tolkien had any hopes that readers would dissect his work in such depth, he would wish that it was on the subject of the language, the pastoral settings and the 'poetry' of his work, rather than the logicality of his plot.

 

[Narkalui]

Amen Sir!

 

[Darth Angelus]

Whenever I see these kinds of discussions, of which Valar or Maia would defeat which, and surely these people would have helped, etc, it makes me think that the readers don't entirely 'get' Tolkien. The Silmarillion was written to record an invented mythology, to be read perhaps as one might read classical mythology such as The Odyssey or Illiad, or perhaps works like Beowulf. It wasn't expected that descriptions of wars and contests of strength would necessarily stand up to a sort of D&D numerical analysis; it was supposed to be more like prose poetry than a gaming manual... I suspect that if Tolkien had any hopes that readers would dissect his work in such depth, he would wish that it was on the subject of the language, the pastoral settings and the 'poetry' of his work, rather than the logicality of his plot.

A fair point. I think I do get that it is myth. At least in theory. It is just that I am a very mathematical person, so I do tend to prefer to think of everything I possibly can in a numerical way, whether it was intended like that or not. I tend to think "systems" are flawed of they don't stand up to numerical analysis.
I am aware this approach may be flawed, in the sense it was not always how the author of a fictional work intended said work to be viewed, but I can't quite help myself. Then again, I have seen plenty of other people on forums viewing the fictional works of others through the prism of their own personal beliefs and values. This numerical analysis* is my way of doing that, I suppose.
Logic in fiction is something which has been discussed quite a bit (including by Tolkien himself, I believe), but obviously it is a layman's notion of logic that is referred to, not the strict academic discipline. I doubt there is any work of fantasy that would stand up very well to the rigorous demands of formal logic or mathematics. That is not in the genre's nature.
Still, Tolkien's world is a well-crafted one. Probably the one with the most attention to detail out there. But I guess as you go back in Arda's history, especially to the earliest of days when the Valar were still active, things are intentionally a bit mythologicall blurry.


* I have studied some computer science on university level, so it is not simply D&D or other RPGs I am coming from, even though RPGs do have the trait of trying to give numerical structure to a work of fiction, which admittedly does appeal to my nature.