# Eagles and Dwarves



## GuardianRanger (Jun 21, 2004)

I know the Eagles are not partial to any one race, but help out where they can. However, the following lines perplex me a bit:



> No! we are glad to cheat the goblins of their sport, and glad to repay our thanks to you, but we will not risk ourselves for dwarves in the southward plains.



So, do the Eagles not like Dwarves for some reason? Or am I just reading too much into it?


----------



## Gothmog (Jun 21, 2004)

I think that you are indeed reading too much into it. If you check the words just before the quote you gave you will find


> The Lord of the Eagles would not take them anywhere near where men lived. 'They would shoot at us with their great bows of yew,' he said. 'for they would think we were after their sheep. And at other times they would be right.


It is not that the Eagles dislike Dwarves in particular but that the risk is too great under the circumstances.


----------



## GuardianRanger (Jun 21, 2004)

I saw those lines. I was actually going to hold on to them for if I should ever jump into the debate as to why doesn't the ring bearers just fly to mount doom on the Eagles.

I guess I was just reading too much into it. It just stuck out at me as I read it.


----------



## baragund (Jun 22, 2004)

_I saw those lines. I was actually going to hold on to them for if I should ever jump into the debate as to why doesn't the ring bearers just fly to mount doom on the Eagles._ 

But GR, that's just what the eagles did when they rescued Frodo and Sam from the slopes of Mount Doom after the Ring was destroyed. So couldn't they have just as easily flown the two hobbits there in the first place and saved everyone from all the anguish, trials and tribulations of the quest?

Maybe we should take this up in the LOTR area where others can jump in on this discussion...


----------



## Ithrynluin (Jun 22, 2004)

> So couldn't they have just as easily flown the two hobbits there in the first place and saved everyone from all the anguish, trials and tribulations of the quest?


No, because they are only supposed to offer assistance in dire need, not do the work for the people, who were supposed to grow and learn to fend for themselves through these very trials and tribulations.


----------



## GuardianRanger (Jun 22, 2004)

Gorthaur said:


> No, because they are only supposed to offer assistance in dire need, not do the work for the people, who were supposed to grow and learn to fend for themselves through these very trials and tribulations.



That, and I would say that pre-ring-in-crack-of-doom, the allies of mordor would attempt to shoot them down (like the Eagles suppose.) However, after-ring-in-crack-of-doom, I think there was too much disarray by the allies of Mordor. Ie, the orcs, trolls, goblins, evil men, etc were all over the place, not knowing what to do. In a simple form, who would shoot them down when they went to rescue Sam and Frodo?

Just a thought.

And since we've digressed from the original thread, it could go in the LOTR section. My initial question was about the Eagles and Dwarves in the Hobbit.


----------



## greypilgrim (Jun 25, 2004)

If I was an eagle, I wouldn't risk my neck for the dwarves either. The eagles did great deeds in the LoTR/Sil stories...nothing petty or otherwise insignificant.

On a side note...who(whom) did the eagles serve, Manwe upon Taniquentl?


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 2, 2004)

Well, they don't really hate dwarves. They just look down on them.

Get it! Eagles! Look down on! Eagles fly! Get it! Uh. ..

Clears throat and hides under her computer desk.


----------



## baragund (Jul 2, 2004)

*A collective groan rises world-wide from the 1,953 members of The Tolkien Forum.*


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Jul 23, 2004)

> The Lord of the Eagles would not take them anywhere near where men lived. 'They would shoot at us with their great bows of yew,' he said. 'for they would think we were after their sheep. And at other times they would be right.





> I saw those lines. I was actually going to hold on to them for if I should ever jump into the debate as to why doesn't the ring bearers just fly to mount doom on the Eagles.





> No, because they are only supposed to offer assistance in dire need, not do the work for the people, who were supposed to grow and learn to fend for themselves through these very trials and tribulations.



Keep in mind that the "eagles" Tolkien refers to in "The Hobbit" are different than the eagles he wrote about in LOTR. 

Ok, ok, of course they are the SAME eagles, but the thought behind the eagles is different.

When Tolkien wrote "The Hobbit" the eagles he talks about are simply eagles. However, when he wrote LOTR the eagles he writes about are actually Maiar. So the actions of the eagles in "The Hobbit" can be somewhat excused because they didn't know their ancestry yet (simply because Tolkien hadn't coordinated it yet). 

In other words, the eagles in "The Hobbit" are portrayed as birds, while the eagles in LOTR are portrayed as "demi-gods." 

Just a thought.


----------



## baragund (Jul 23, 2004)

Hmmm, are you sure about how JRRT viewed the eagles, Nenya?

By the time The Hobbit was written in 1937, JRRT already had pretty extensive writings on the overall mythology. There was even a fairly complete version of The Silmarillion written in 1930. LOTR originated as a sequal to The Hobbit but the mythology, including the special relationship of the eagles to Manwe, existed in JRRT's mind at the time he wrote The Hobbit, I think.


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Jul 23, 2004)

Yes, the writings definitely existed at the time Tolkien wrote the mythology, but I do not believe he meant "The Hobbit" to be an extension of that mythology until later on. If I remember correctly, Tolkien did not even intend the One Ring to be anything more than a magical trinket until a few years after writing "The Hobbit."

As far as I know, "The Hobbit" was originally a children's book and nothing more. It was not until Tolkien got the idea of LOTR that he decided to incorprate it into his mythology.


----------



## baragund (Jul 23, 2004)

But The Hobbit provided glimpses of the mythology, including references to Gondolin, the land of Faerie (i.e. Valinor), and the High Elves. They were all elements that existing in the mythology since JRRT started writing The Book of Lost Tales in the 1910s.

Certainly The Hobbit was written for children and I also recall reading somewhere (his letters, I think) that the concept of the Rings of Power evolved significantly between the time he wrote The Hobbit and when he wrote LOTR but The Hobbit, as written in 1937, _fit_ into his mythology as it existed at the time and I don't think he would have created anything in The Hobbit that would have been inconsistent with the mythology, including his impression of the Eagles.

Also, the Eagles have typoically had a "hands off" approach to Middle-earthly affairs. They were almost always observers rather than participants and I think the way JRRT portrayed them in The Hobbit is consistent with that approach.


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Jul 24, 2004)

Hmmm. . . .

I am not quite sure what quotes you are refering to, and I cannot look them up as I let my cousin borrow my copy of the Hobbit over a year ago and she lost it.  Would you mind quoting them?

I cannot deny that Tolkien's extensive mythology _influenced_ the Hobbit, but I still do not believe he specifically wrote the Hobbit to be a _part_ of that mythology. If you were a fantasy author, naturally your previous writings and the world you created would influence the first actual fantasy book you published.

However, I see two major inconsistencies:

1: I do not recall any mention of Hobbits until the actual writing of the Hobbit. This would mean that Tolkien formulated a completely _new_ idea for his first fantasy book, something non-existant in his mythology.

2: The style in which he wrote. The entirety of his mythology was written at an adult level, while the Hobbit was a children's book. Notice how when Tolkien decided to "incorporate" the Hobbit into his mythology by adding LOTR to it his writing style changed quickly into a more adult level. When writing of his mythology, Tolkien seemed to have a higher level of respect.

Therefore, I do not think that when Tolkien wrote the Hobbit he actually ever meant to add it into his history (he even added a new species for his new book!). I believe that all he was thinking about was a children's book. But when his ideas for LOTR started forming, he found a way to incorporate the book. His lack of planning in the beginning would account for any inconsistancies (i.e. rescuing princesses and gun powder mentions). 

However, I could be very wrong, and if that is proven, I will stand corrected. But if I am correct, the eagles would be different.


----------



## baragund (Jul 26, 2004)

My, this is becoming a quite interesting discussion!  And who said our Forum is running out of things to discuss??

First, I think we are almost in agreement. I believe I understand what you are saying, Nenya, but I could do a better job explaining myself.

Regarding linkages from The Hobbit to the overall mythology, they are sprinkled throughout the book but a delightful passage is found in "A Short Rest" where Bilbo and company meet Elrond. Here we have the following:

"The master of the house was an elf-friend - one of those people whose fathers came into the strange stories before the beginning of History, the wars of the evil goblin and the elves and the first men in the North. In those days of our tale there were still some people who had both elves and heroes of the North for ancestors, and Elrond the master of the house was their chief."

And then...

"He [Elrond] comes into many tales, but his part in the story of Bilbo's great adventure is a small one..."

Next...

"Elrond knew all about runes of every kind. That day he looked at the swords they had brought from the trolls' lair, and he said: 'These are not troll-make. They are old swords, very old swords of the High Elves of the West, my kin. They were made in Gondolin for the Goblin-wars..."

Finally, when Elrond translates the moon-letters 'and the setting sun with the last light of Durin's Day will shine upon the key-hole.'

"'Durin, Durin!' said Thorin. 'He was the father of the fathers of the eldest race of the Dwarves, the Longbeards, and my first ancestor: I am his heir.'"

Here we have references to 'High Elves of the West', 'Gondolin', the 'Goblin-wars, 'Longbeards'. Each of these are referenced not only in the overall mythology, but they were included in the earliest Silmarillion, written in 1926-1930 and the Quenta Silmarlillion, written in 1930. Even Elrond existed as a character in the mythology by 1930. (You can find all that stuff in HOME vol. IV, The Shaping of Middle-earth.)

As I said before, these glimpses show the The Hobbit was written to _fit_ into the overall mythology. The mythology was a living document. JRRT was always adding to it and refining it. The Hobbit, and LOTR became the next steps in the evolution of that mythology.

Of course JRRT had to write The Hobbit in different language to appeal to children and Hobbits did not appear in the mythology until he wrote The Hobbit. But I don't see the evolution of The Hobbit as a part of the mythology as much different from the evolution of, say, the story of Beren and Luthien or the story of the Nauglafring. 

Getting back to the Eagles, don't forget your garden-variety modern eagle could not carry something the size of a Hobbit, let alone a Dwarf or a Wizard, who is the size of a man. The eagles in The Hobbit are pretty exceptional and they don't strike me as inconsistent with the demi-god status you ascribe to them in LOTR and the rest of the mythology.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 31, 2004)

A mild suggestion: Perhaps, at this point, Tolkien's mythology was part of his mind that everything he wrote and thought about became part of it almost immediately. While during the first line "In a hole in the ground. . ." written on the paper, he didn't think of the myths, he would've probably by the time he got home that night realized that they were obviously part of his land scape. I imagine he began to weave hints of them into the story the moment he began to tell it to his boys.


----------



## baragund (Aug 1, 2004)

I agree, Elgee, that sounds reasonable.


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Aug 2, 2004)

And I agree that sounds reasonable too. That is until I have the time and energy to come up with a rebuttle to baragund.


----------



## baragund (Aug 3, 2004)

Is this becoming a debate for its own enjoyment or is there something where you still aren't convinced? Either way, it's an interesting discussion.


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Aug 4, 2004)

No, I am still not convinced.

I just think the idea that Tolkien might not have specifically written The Hobbit as a part of his mythology is interesting. Yes, I agree that he put references in there and that his mythology influenced the book, but I still do not see that as grounds to state that he originally _meant_ The Hobbit to actually be a part of his mythology. Tolkien did not decide to write The Lord of the Rings until a few years after writing The Hobbit. I cannot help but wonder if The Hobbit might have dwindled to be no more a part of the mythology than The Adventures of Tom Bombadil were if The Hobbit had not been a success and if he had not gotten the idea to make the One Ring into a larger storyline.

Thus I conclude that, at the time of the writing of The Hobbit, Tolkien probably did not _intentionally_ mean to place the book directly into his mythology. It was not until the idea for LOTR came along that he decided to incorporate it as an actual part of history.

And therefore I conclude that some parts and characters of the book (such as the Eagles) were originally not meant to exactly fit into the mythology in Tolkien's mind. The Eagles probably were not meant to be Maiar in The Hobbit, and they certainly do not act like it!

Add this to all my other comments and you have what I'm thinking.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Aug 24, 2004)

baragund said:


> Hmmm, are you sure about how JRRT viewed the eagles, Nenya?
> 
> By the time The Hobbit was written in 1937, JRRT already had pretty extensive writings on the overall mythology. There was even a fairly complete version of The Silmarillion written in 1930. LOTR originated as a sequal to The Hobbit but the mythology, including the special relationship of the eagles to Manwe, existed in JRRT's mind at the time he wrote The Hobbit, I think.



The interesting thing about the use of the Eagles, both in The Hobbit and in LOTR, is that Tolkien uses them as a classic _deus ex machina_, something rarely seen in modern literature:

*Deus ex Machina*

"In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a _deus ex machina._

"Few modern works feature deities suspended by wires from the ceiling, but the term _deus ex machina_ is still used for cases where an author uses some improbable (and often clumsy) [but not in Tolkien's case] plot device to work his or her way out of a difficult situation. When the cavalry comes charging over the hill or when the impoverished hero is relieved by an unexpected inheritance, it's often called a deus ex machina."

I find it fascinating that Tolkien, time after time, holds the Eagles "in reserve" to use as the "cavalry:" the deciding factor, the tipping of the scales or final resolution to great battles and rescues (and to announce from the skies over Minas Tirith the end of Sauron) — yet the fact that he uses this ancient device in a modern work is virtually never mentioned in any discussions of Tolkien that I have yet seen. (You can learn more than you ever wanted to know about it at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=deus+ex+machina.)

Barley


----------



## baragund (Aug 24, 2004)

You're right Barliman. The _deus ex machina_ is a clumsy device. When it is used, people tend to stop "believing" in the story because such an implausible element has been introduced. One sign of a great story is when the author can convince his audience that whatever he is writing about _could_ happen and the _deus ex machina_ tends to destroy that plausibility.

It is remarkable that JRRT could pull it off repeatedly in his writings and somehow avoid losing his audience.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Aug 24, 2004)

baragund said:


> ...It is remarkable that JRRT could pull it off repeatedly in his writings and somehow avoid losing his audience.



Sometimes I wonder if Tolkien didn't borrow the basic story arc and structure of the Hobbit and expand it mightily for use in LOTR. In both books, the protagonists seem to follow the same road, right out of Bag End, "ever on and on," encountering virtually the same or similar enemies and challenges (with major exeptions of course), i.e.:

The use of the Eagles in both books as _deus ex machina_
Bilbo's battles with the spiders/Frodo's battle with Shelob 
The Battle of Five Armies/The Battle at Helm's Deep
Bilbo's troubles re-acquiring Bag End/The Scouring of the Shire

This notion first came to me when thinking about the use of the Eagles in both stories. Then I began to notice other similarities as outlined above. If I didn't know that The Hobbit had been written first, I'd almost be tempted to say that it was a miniature LOTR.

I've never really sat down with the books and done a dramatic structural analysis and comparison, but after 40 years of reading them both, that's the feeling I have. 

Barley


----------



## baragund (Aug 25, 2004)

Interesting theory! On an even more fundamental level, both stories are an _Odyssey_-like quest, where most of the story is taken up by the journey that is needed to reach the given destination. The Hobbit is simplified, compared to LOTR, and is more light-hearted, being geared to children (finding treasure vs. saving the free world). But the basic structure of the two are very similar when you think about it.

This is a pretty significant topic and I'm afraid it may get lost to the membership being buried here in a discussion about 'eagles and dwarves'. You may want to move your post into one of the main discussion threads so some of the 'big guns' of the forum can weigh in on the issue.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Aug 26, 2004)

baragund said:


> ...You may want to move your post into one of the main discussion threads so some of the 'big guns' of the forum can weigh in on the issue.



Nah — that's okay — I was just musing! 

Barley

"Those who write clearly have readers, those who write obscurely have commentators." —Albert Camus 71b


----------



## Ronaldinho (Aug 31, 2004)

I don't think the eagles have a particular grudge against the dwarves. they were just being cautious.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 8, 2004)

GuardianRanger said:


> ...why doesn't the ring bearer just fly to mount doom on the Eagles.



You mean immediately after the Council at Rivendell? That would have been the ultimate solution, eh? Why didn't Elrond or Gandalf think of that? (Wouldn't have left much of a story though!)

Barley


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Sep 21, 2004)

I was "dibbling" around in _The Letters_ the other day and found this. I thought it suitable:



> The the first real story of this imaginary world almost fully formed as it now appears was written in prose during sick-leave at the end of 1916: The Fall of Gondolin, which I had the cheek to read to the Exeter College Essay Club in 1918 . . . .
> 
> I went on after return; but when I attempted to get any of this stuff published I was not successful. The Hobbit was originally quite unconnected, though it inevitably got drawn in to the circumference of the greater construction; and in the event modified it. It was unhappily really meant, as far as I was conscious, as a 'children's story', and as I had not learned sense then, and my children were not quite old enough to correct me, it has some of the sillinesses of manner caught unthinkingly from the kind of stuff I had had served to me, as Chaucer may catch a minstrel tag. I deeply regret them. So do intelligent children.
> 
> ...


----------



## baragund (Sep 22, 2004)

Hi Nenya!! Great to hear from you again!  

The letter you reference sure sounds like JRRT did not intend The Hobbit to be part of his overall mythology. But why are there glimpses throughout The Hobbit to that larger world? Why are there references to Gondolin, _Orcrist, Glamdring,_ orcs, high elves and the like? Could it be that JRRT did not mention any of those things in the first edition of The Hobbit? The second edition was published after LOTR came out (I think) or at least while he was writing it, so he could have enriched the original story with these references to his larger world.


----------



## Nenya Evenstar (Sep 22, 2004)

You know, I'm not quite sure! Either that or Tolkien had spent so much time thinking about his "Fairy Stories" that when he began to write _The Hobbit_ he unconciously added parts of them to the story.


----------



## Eledhwen (Oct 6, 2004)

*What a lot of discussion!*

1. Dwarves were a bit axe-happy around trees, and may have downed a few eiries. They also inhabited rocky places, which would also invade eagle space, so maybe the eagles weren't too happy with them.

2. When Tolkien wrote that famous line 'in a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit', it seems to me that the word just came out, a kind of subconscious amalgam of 'hole' and 'rabbit', maybe, and Tolkien liked it. I can just imagine hobbits taking form as a species or race in his mind until he just had to write about them (and there were some handy children to read said story). His mind was also full of the Silmarillion, ever under development, that his hobbit Bilbo just couldn't help stumbling across it in his travels, and Tolkien discovered that Hobbiton was actually in Middle-earth too. Some characters were of the family trees already written into the Silmarillion. Others, eg: Gandalf, Thranduil, Theoden, Gollum and the hobbits, were new inventions. He did not recognise his own genius, however, and clamours for a sequel to the book meant that hobbits were to become engaged with more of Middle-earth and become inextricably entwined with the existing mythology, the everyday folk in a high setting.

3. Deus ex Machina: Tolkien, in his comments on Zimmerman's attempt at a storyline for Lord of the Rings, comments on Z's tendency to send the eagles to the rescue far too often. Tolkien admits that the device makes the story improbable, and should therefore be used extremely sparingly.

4. I do not think the eagles in the Hobbit are much different from the ones in Lord of the Rings. Tolkien may have got their lineage sorted out by the time the sequel was written, but they are the same creatures, watching, waiting, and turning up in the nick of time. In both stories they speak, and are spoken to with deference, and are considerably larger than any eagle seen nowadays.

There, I think that brings me up to date with the discussion. Have I missed anything? Oh yes, I thoroughly disapprove of moving this thread to somewhere where more scholarly debators will find it. Are they too proud to look in "The Hobbit" subforum, where a childrens book is discussed? Then let them miss out, I say.


----------



## baragund (Oct 6, 2004)

I just finished reading the 1930 Silmarillion that is in The Shaping of Middle-Earth, Vol. 4 of the History of Middle Earth. I found a couple more potential linkages between JRRT’s mythology and The Hobbit, which was published in 1937:

1. The race of Eagles: In the 1930 Silmarillion, the Eagles were folk of Manwe and they had basically the same “supernatural” abilities that they had in The Hobbit, The LOTR and the version of the Silmarillion that was published in 1977. They were large enough and powerful enough to carry a Man, they could talk, they had their own independent society complete with a ruler (Thorndor was the name of the king of the Eagles in the 1930 Silmarillion), and there was the same pattern of generally refraining from getting involved with the day-to-day conflicts of the “Outer Lands” (JRRT’s earlier term for Middle-Earth) unless there was a dire need. In the 1930 Silmarillion, for example, there were accounts of how Thorndor bore away Fingolfin’s body after his tragic duel with Morgoth, and how the eagles interceded in the flight of the remnants of the people of Gondolin after the sack of that city. Compare these descriptions of Eagles in the 1930 Silmarillion to how they are described in The Hobbit and it’s hard to think how JRRT could not have thought of them as the same race.

2. In the 1930 Silmarillion, there was “The Last Battle” (JRRT’s earlier term for the War of Wrath) where we first see the winged dragons. Like the published Silmarillion, the sons of the Valar, with the aid of Earendil and the Eagles, destroyed these dragons. What is interesting is the 1930 edition specifies that *two *of the winged dragons escaped. It would be reasonable to think JRRT had one of those winged dragons in mind when he made up the character Smaug. I wonder what happened to the other dragon because I can’t recall any other accounts of dragons in the 2nd or 3rd Ages. Maybe he’s still out there, lying on top of the gold reserve in Fort Knox!  

It’s hard to refute the letter that Nenya posted earlier but with all this circumstantial evidence, it sure is hard for me to see how JRRT could have originally made up everything going on in The Hobbit without intending for it to fit into his larger mythology.

And welcome to the discussion, Eledhwen! It’s great to hear some other perspectives.


----------



## Eledhwen (Oct 9, 2004)

baragund said:


> What is interesting is the 1930 edition specifies that *two *of the winged dragons escaped. It would be reasonable to think JRRT had one of those winged dragons in mind when he made up the character Smaug. I wonder what happened to the other dragon because I can’t recall any other accounts of dragons in the 2nd or 3rd Ages. Maybe he’s still out there, lying on top of the gold reserve in Fort Knox!


You just reminded me that I want to check the Bodleian Library in the hope of finding the notes on an Essay JRRT delivered at the Oxford Museum of Natural History, on dragons. It's a subject that really fascinates me, and I wouldn't be surprised if Smaug's co-escapee turned up, as England has a rich history of dragonlore, mostly forgotten!


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 11, 2004)

Is it possible that it ended up in Mordor and that's what was used to breed mockeries of the great Eagles? 

The Nazgul steeds, in other words.


----------



## baragund (Oct 11, 2004)

There's an interesting thought, Elgee  I've always wondered where the Nazgul's winged steeds came from. But wouldn't we have seen "Mommy" (or "Daddy") during the War of the Ring?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Oct 11, 2004)

baragund said:


> There's an interesting thought, Elgee  I've always wondered where the Nazgul's winged steeds came from. But wouldn't we have seen "Mommy" (or "Daddy") during the War of the Ring?



Here's the only thing I could find from deep in the bowels of a long letter (#211) from the Carpenter collection:

Tolkien: 

"I did not intend the steed of the Witch-King to be what is now called a 'pterodactyl', and often is drawn (with rather less shadowy evidence than lies behind many monsters of the new and fascinating semi-scientific mythology of the 'Prehistoric'). But obviously it is pterodactylic and owes much to the new mythology, and its description even provides a sort of way in which it could be a last survivor of older geological eras."

As far as I have been able to find, Tolkien offers nothing whatever on the _origins_ of these monsters.

Barley


----------



## Gildor (Oct 12, 2004)

The lord of the Eagles also owed a debt to Gandalf for healing him of an arrow-wound. Saving him from the burning tree would have evened the score, and the Eagles seemed to be proud creatures and uninclined to bear strangers as burdens in a hostile land. Likewise, it seems unsure that they would have agreed to whisk the Ringbearer away to Mount Doom even if they were asked, for the journey would still have been a very dangerous one and perhaps even more foolish than walking. Even a solitary Eagle winging toward Mordor might not have escaped Sauron's notice, and it might have served only to return the Ring to Sauron's hand.


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 13, 2004)

baragund said:


> There's an interesting thought, Elgee  I've always wondered where the Nazgul's winged steeds came from. But wouldn't we have seen "Mommy" (or "Daddy") during the War of the Ring?


Nah, because after they hatched the babies all turned on mommy and nibbled her to death!

Just like a dozen, starving, half-crazed weasles!



Eld said:


> 1. Dwarves were a bit axe-happy around trees, and may have downed a few eiries. They also inhabited rocky places, which would also invade eagle space, so maybe the eagles weren't too happy with them.


You know, I always thought of all the eyries being rocks. I just don't see a tree capable of holding a BIG eagle nest. If you look at how much our regular eagle nests weigh, it would take quite a tree to hold the nest of the eagles of Tolkien.


----------



## baragund (Oct 13, 2004)

That's right, Elgee. I don't think even Mallorn trees could hold up the eyrie of Tolkien's Eagles. I remember reading somewhere that these Eagles had wingspans of anywhere between 30 feet and 30 _fathoms_ which is 6 feet. It would have to be a mighty big tree to hold up something that is approaching the size of a Boeing 737!


----------



## Flame of Udûn (Oct 14, 2004)

I read something interesting in _The Treason of Isengard_ a few days ago:


> The Black Riders now have taken the form of demonic eagles and fly before host, or [?take eagle-like] vulture birds as steeds.
> Chapter XI _The Story Foreseen from Moria_


----------



## Eledhwen (Oct 14, 2004)

HLGStrider said:


> I just don't see a tree capable of holding a BIG eagle nest.


I think a Mallorn, which held up the talan of Celeborn and Galadriel, could cope with a simple (albeit large) eirie. There are trees alive today, even in the UK that are 1000 years old, with huge girths. I imagine some of the old trees of the forests of Middle-earth were older, thicker and taller. Is there an Ent around on these boards who can settle this dispute?


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 17, 2004)

I still have problems with the math, Eld. An eagles nest can weigh over a ton. I remember reading the record somewhere and I think it was 10,000 pounds, but that was at least ten years ago, and in that ten years my brain may have tripled or doubled the amount. Then a small eagle has a wingspan of thirty feet as opposed to our eagles having a wingspan of what? Nine feet? If you assume their nests are proportionately the same size as the eagles in our world we are talking about 30,000 pounds here, minimum.

Did I do that math right?


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 18, 2004)

From the Silmarillion: Chapter 2: Of Aulë and Yavanna


> Then Yavanna was glad, and she stood up, reaching her arms towards the heavens, and she said: *'High shall climb the trees of Kementári, that the Eagles of the King may house therein!*'
> But Manwë rose also, and it seemed that he stood to such a height that his voice came down to Yavanna as from the paths of the winds.
> *'Nay,' he said, 'only the trees of Aulë will be tall enough. In the mountains the Eagles shall house, and hear the voices of those who call upon us*. But in the forests shall walk the Shepherds of the Trees.'


I think this is a reasonably clear answer to where they built their homes


----------



## Eledhwen (Oct 20, 2004)

Touche! Mountains it is, then; and the eagles have only one reason left to distrust the dwarves (though I remember the scene in Mirkwood in The Hobbit when they were a bit twang-happy with their bows and arrows, so maybe there are two reasons after all - just different ones).


----------

