@"Gandalf claims to be the most dangerous thing Gimli will ever meet unless... this cements the power hierarchy (as Gandalf sees it) as Sauron > Gandalf the White > everything else."

Heresay at best. Who knows whether Gandalf is right in this. On middle earth in the third age there is Sauron, Sauruman, possibly other Balrogs of Morgoth, Galadriel and Elrond (weilding rings of power), the Witch-King of Angmar (also weilding a ring if power), Isidulur's heir (who could potentially take the ones ring, and this would scare Sauron) - unknown dragons, whatever Tom Bombadill is, two missing Istari, Radaghast the Brown, and Shelob.

Arguably Galadriel is Gandalfs equal in many ways. Both have a ring of power, both saw the light of the trees, both have millenium of experience. Galadriel is a grandchild of both Noldor royalty and Telri royalty. Easily the most prominant elf in middle earth (and given the hierarchy Vala>Maia>Elf>Human, and the evidence that the greatest Elf of his time (Fingolfin) can best the greatest Vala (Morgoth) in single combat (he wounded Morgoth seven times, which would have been more useful if he hadn't been fighting an immortal god) there is every reason to believe tere is overlap, so the best elf could be better than the weakest of the Maia... Thus we do not have a strict heirarchy) could have out done the random Maia picked to go to middle earth - gandalf wasn't the first to be picked, right? He was sent as an after thought?

@orathaic: It's not exactly hearsay when Gandalf has intimate knowledge of pretty much everyone you listed. Bombadil and Shelob would be the exceptions; Shelob can be ruled out by in-book events. Bombadil stands outside the power hierarchy entirely, as far as I'm concerned--nothing affects him, and he doesn't affect anything--but at any rate his 'power level' (inappropriate as the term is to describe someone in Bombadil's narrative position) is so unclear that no reasonable argument can be constructed.

Gandalf the white easily bests any nazgul, and probably any one of the Istari. The great dragons at that point are all dead, and shelob is a poor weakling.
I do agree about Galadriel. She is easily the most powerful elf alive.

PF, there is a lot of debate on that. But Tolkien definitely meant this as a religious thing.

Somewhat. Tolkien expressly stated that his mythos was not an allegory to Christianity. While Eru and the Ainulindalë certainly sound like God and the creation, I think it's better to view Tolkien's creations as non-allegorical, and separate to religion, as Tolkien intended.

It's worth noting that Sauron was *not* the most powerful of the Maia. When Melian put up her girdle around Doriath; she said that only Morgoth himself would be able to get through it (Beren and his Doom were clearly an exception). So Melian's enchantments were clearly more powerful than Sauron's.

And the Balrog's were progressively less powerful; their chief lieutenant Gothmog was slain during the fall of Gondolin by Glorfindel.

Gandalf the White and Galadriel would've been of fairly equal strength; and a long way ahead of Saruman after his fall from grace.

PF, he actually said both. In the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, in a letter written to his editor, he said:

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

And where did he expressly say that it was not Christian?

And as the above quote, I think the opposite. That it is best to view his work completely linked to religion, as he intended.

KC, that means that his Catholicism heavily influenced the views and beliefs he had on things like evil and power when writing it. He was adamantly against allegory.

"For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

Let me clarify. Tolkien didn't write this like his friend, Lewis. He doesn't point to a figure (Aslan) and say, yes, this is Jesus. It isn't explicit. But there are themes throughout it, and this was intended. This is shown throughout his entire creation, from the Silmarillion on down. His creation story is strikingly similar to Genesis. While you can't point to a clear and consistent over-arching allegory, there are definitely elements that stand out. I would say it shouldn't be classified as allegory proper, but to not see his faith in his creation is willful ignorance.

Yeah KC. I agree with you there

OK, I think we're on the same page then.

"@orathaic: It's not exactly hearsay when Gandalf has intimate knowledge of pretty much everyone you listed."

No, you don't know that Gandalf is telling the truth. It is exactly, by definition, hearsay.

Entirely open to interpretation, for example the extended edition of Peter Jackson's film shows the Witch-King fight with Gandalf the White in the return of the king; and Gandalf is easily defeated.

http://youtu.be/cGdp5_12zW0

Not hearsay - a fight scene which actually happened. Depending on what you want to count as cannon.

@orathaic

You cannot use the movies to prove a point. In the books, (which is Tolkien wrote, unlike the movies) Gandalf alone has the power to withstand the Witchking's entry of Minas Tirith. They, however, never get the chance to fight, because of the arrival of the Rohirrim

I also have no recollection of Gandalf using a cannon.

Movies are not canon. Good? Yes. But not exactly accurate lore.

Yeah, that scene definitely isn't canon.

Yeah the movies were good, but anywhere it deviated from the books is not actually a cannon. To back up your argument you need stuff that Tolkien actually wrote.

Gandalf's estimation of his own strength is hearsay? But Jackson bullshit is canon. Okay, orathaic. I see the standard of argument we're using here. (Btw, if you have any reason to suspect that Gandalf is being less than truthful, feel free to present it.)

"You cannot use the movies to prove a point."

Depends on my point - which is that tolkien's work is open to interpretation.

I specifically said it may not be the case the Gandalf is the second most powerful.

"Yeah the movies were good, but anywhere it deviated from the books is not actually a cannon."

They are cannon for the movie universe, obviously. And at no point did the OP explicitly state which legolas/gandalf/galadriel they were talking about (or which Rambo)

Also, based on only not the movies then, do Balrogs have wings?

@"Gandalf's estimation of his own strength is hearsay?"

Yes, learn the definition of heresay.

@ orathiac "Also, based on only not the movies then, do Balrogs have wings?"
Nowhere in the books does it state they have wings. And if they do, they're pretty useless, since several of them have fallen to their deaths.

@ orathiac "They are cannon for the movie universe, obviously."
Alright, fine. We're not talking about the movie universe then.

A few of his writings mention the Balrogs having wings early on. It does not mention them ever flying, however, so it is a solely aesthetic thing. Like a penguin.

Jackson deviations from Tolkien are pretty damn low on the hierarchy of LotR canon, but make selective arguments as you prefer, I suppose.

I dunno what heresay is, but there's a substantial difference between Gandalf reporting the statements of others and Gandalf providing his own judgment--the difference between "hearsay" and "not hearsay", in fact.

Have fun establishing that the wisest of the Maiar has (a) shit judgment or (b) a reason to lie to Gimli/Legolas/Aragorn.