# Was Smaug in the War of Wrath?



## Bard the Bowman

I think that Smaug was in the War of Wrath. Let us examine the facts. Smaug is of the Winged Uruloki. These were created by Morgoth, and in the Great Battle the Silmarillion states that well-nigh all of them were destroyed...but not all. However, if nearly all of them were destroyed and Smaug was not among them, how would so few breed to create Smaug? Isn't it more likely that Smaug was one of the ones that escaped? 

Smaug says in the Hobbit that he laid low the warriors of old. I hardly think he is talking about the dwarves of Erebor and Girion and the warriors of Dale. He states, "their like has not been seen in the world again.... I was young then, now I am old..." 

Greater warriors than Girion have been seen since his time. And I do not recall Thror or Thrain being exceptional warriors. They would not be called the "warriors of old". Also, i hardly think a dragon would refer to himself as young just a century or so ago. 

I think that Smaug is talking about the Great Battle, when they were unleashed. He could have been talking about the elves of Valinor, "the warriors of old", because truly their like has not been seen again. And he would have been young at that time. After the battle, he hid in the Wastes and re-emerged, being, understandably, the greatest of the dragons of his day.


----------



## Elthir

No Smaug was the son of the dragon Nardor, hatched in the Second Age :*p

Just kidding of course; but didn't you raise this in another fairly recent thread too?


Anyway I think 'well-nigh' is vague enough. All we need is two, if we assume male and female, especially if we don't really know how many little dragons a female can have at one time. Tolkien even thought so in 1930:



> '... and the sons of the Valar prevailed, and all the dragons were destroyed save two alone; and they fled into the East. (...) For a while his Orcs and his Dragons breeding again in dark places affrighted the world, and in sundry regions do so yet; but ere the End all shall perish by the valour of mortal Men.'
> 
> JRRT, Quenta (II) The Shaping of Middle-Earth



Granted Tolkien revised that part, but still; and if I had to guess, JRRT may have just thought it better not to give a specific number [edit: *correction in 2020* -- after I checked HOME in 2020, it appears that Christopher Tolkien edited "save two alone"] as that might be difficult to know, especially given that this concerns the account of the War of Wrath.


----------



## Turgon

It's possible I guess, though you'd think there would be a note from Tolkien somewhere if that's what he intended.

As Galin points out I don't think breeding is an issue here as it only takes two dragons (I assume - but hey who knows?) to create a hatchling. As for the mention of warriors of old, there is a massive gulf of time between the War of Wrath and the Fall of Smaug in which he could have been hatched, grown to maturity, and then fought any number of people, especially given his mobility. Even just in the environs of the Withered Heath he could have come into contact with Northmen, Elves, Beornings, Dwarves, even Orcs. Scatha also springs to mind here, and could, by a similar leap of the imagination, have been Smaug's father, brother, or son. The term 'warriors of old' is also rather vague, Bard's black arrow he had from 'of old' which presumably means from the time of Girion. Though 'of old' could have different meaning to a mortal man than it does to a long lived dragon. 

The Withered Heath, however, was a breeding ground for dragons, and given it also seems to be Smaug's point of origin... maybe his history is not as grand as we'd like it to be? If I had to make a guess, I'd say Smaug was spawned there sometime in the first half of the Third Age, rather than either the First or Second Ages. Lack of mention in either the War of Wrath, or even the Last Alliance, despite his apparent will to work with Sauron, makes me think that he came after. At the same time, his speech does make me think he's been around a while, even in Middle-Earth terms.


----------



## Bucky

No, Smaug wasn't in The War of Wrath ~ am I also having De Ja Vu here, lol?

Thorin, in 'An Unexpected Party' plainly calls Smaug "the greatest dragon of his age" or something like that. Sorry, I'm under the weather & don't feel like looking up the quote.​


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Yes Bucky you are correct. But if Ancalagon had survived the battle wouldn't he have been called the greatest dragon of the age? Silly Bucky. And he would not have referred to Girion and Girion's men as "warriors of old". Remember, long and slow is the life of dragons. If he was young when he laid low the warriors of old, and he is "very old" in The Hobbit, then that would have to be several several several several centuries ago. Thousands of years. A very very very long time. 

I love it how you choose my weakest point and never touch my other points. I notice how none of you went near the fact that Smaug referred to himself as "young" when he laid low the warriors of old. Sure, the surviving dragons could have spawned new ones. Let's leave that out of here then. 

Keeping Smaug's "youngness" at the times of the warriors of old in mind, how could the like of the warriors of old never be seen again? It is because A: They were either the Vanyar, who only came back to Middle-earth once and never returned. Or B: It refers to any Eldar that came from Valinor, including the Noldor. The fact they their like hasn't been seen again would be due to the fact that so few Noldor were left at the time of The Hobbit they were virtually nonexistent. 

P.S. Galin, Nardor is (was) a realm, not a dragon.

I did write this in another thread, but I felt it was not relevant to the title, and being one who abides by the rules, decided to start another thread in which this subject would be pertinent. I only wish all others acted this way.


----------



## Elthir

> P.S. Galin, Nardor is (was) a realm, not a dragon.



No, Nardor is a dragon. Didn't you examine the evidence I posted above? And it doesn't not make sense too, so there we are :*p


----------



## Bard the Bowman

I can tell you know that Nardor was a realm. The evidence is overwhelming (Just check out the thread in Floating Log). But I also see that you have no argument against Smaug in the War of Wrath now.


----------



## Elthir

Also, some context:



> 'Revenge! The King under the Mountain is dead and where are his kin that dare seek revenge? Girion Lord of Dale is dead, and I have eaten his people like a wolf among sheep, and where are his sons' sons that dare approach me? I kill where I wish and none dare resist. I laid low the warriors of old and their like is not in the world today. Then I was but young and tender. Now I am old and strong, strong, strong, Thief in the Shadows!' he gloated.
> 
> The Hobbit, Chapter XII, Inside Information



So Smaug is first speaking about a fairly specific time and people, and arguably notes that 'now' Girion's ancestors, for example, will not dare approach him, and 'none' dare resist -- which easily connects with his next statement about the warriors in the world today -- and then he continues with then he was but young and tender...


... then when? to a time thousands of years ago? to a time and battle which wasn't previously mentioned and the reader (of _The Hobbit_ alone) has no real idea about? And what has Smaug been doing lately? reading up on the warriors of today? Or simply noting that 'no warrior', Dwarf, Elf, or Man has been brave enough to challenge him in years (or at least hasn't).


Moreover, I think we can only press the story so far here considering external factors. Why can't Gandalf read the word _orc(h)rist_ in runic writing, but Elrond can? While I appreciate the internal attempts to explain this (Gondolinic runes and so on), and I think Tolkien himself would too, the real answer is that Gandalf wasn't really 'Gandalf' yet, and even in revision this was never 'fixed' (except in a private revision).


No reader of _The Hobbit_, especially a child, is likely to question a timeline here and argue that Smaug shouldn't really be 'old' in Bilbo's day. As long as he outlives Men -- and who really knows how long an 'old' dragon will keep on living -- for all we know Smaug considered himself 'young' and 'tender' until he stopped growing, which could be relatively short compared to the full life of a Dragon.



Anyway, I remain unconvinced. And I realize that the 'external route' is a bit convenient, but I really wish Tolkien had gotten much further along with the '1960 Hobbit' than he did, just for sake of interest to see how he was going to handle 'possibly problematic' statements -- like the way he did with Gandalf, putting dried blood on the swords to explain why Gandalf 'couldn't' read the runes on the swords.




> I can tell you know that Nardor was a realm.



Then you can't tell, actually.



> The evidence is overwhelming (Just check out the thread in Floating Log). But I also see that you have no argument against Smaug in the War of Wrath now.



Now? Or earlier when you wrote 'now'?


----------



## Bucky

Yes, I do...

Where was Smaug all of the Second Age & first 2500 years of the Third Age in this case?

Silly, silly me. :*rolleyes:

You're just out there speculating without a shred of proof ~ one of Tolkiendom's greatest cottage industries these daze. :*D

"Warriors of old who's like does not exist any longer" most likely refers to Girion & the sacking of Erebor & Dale, kinda the way we 'old folks' say "Back in my day, we walked uphill both ways to school, knee deep in the snow with no shoes on..." ;*)


----------



## Elthir

Good point Bucky.

Tolkien knows how people (and certain dragons) speak -- sometimes with a bit of hyperbole for effect, and often enough they speak with respect to their experience. 

Even Smaug would have to admit that he couldn't truly say he knew for certain there was _no warrior_ in _all the world_ today like those he had met of old, but as far as he knew it was 'true enough' in his world, or seemed to be, and was part of a nice boast in any case.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Bucky, as it says, the dragons were in the far north, and came down. Smaug, I'm guessing was among them you silly boy. Isn't that what the surviving dragons were doing anyway? Silly willy. And I understand hyperbole, but if there is a plausible explanation that requires no hyperbole, then wouldn't that be more likely, since it can be taken at face value? 

Also the Silmarillion states that the life of dragons is long and slow. Are we to just disregard that? Because when Smaug laid low the warriors of old, he was young. And in the Hobbit he is old. 

Now the warriors of old. You can see that Smaug is building up. He mentions Thror's descendants who would kill for vengeance. He mentions Girion's descendants who would kill for vengeance. And yes, he could next refer to a conglomeration of the aforementioned threats. I would hold that as plausible, IF he did not state he was young at the time. If you start from that fact, and the quote from the Silmarillion, you can follow the progression. 

1. Smaug is young at the time of the slaughter
2. He is a Winged-Fire breathing dragon.
3. A few escaped the Great Battle
4. Warriors of old, their like is not in the world (or at least not enough to make a notable presence) - Vanyar/Noldor were in the Great Battle, most left after. However, many still remained, but after the Last Alliance diminished and were few by the time of the Hobbit. Therefore, they fit nicely into that scenario. 

From this we conclude: Smaug, the young dragon, was in the Great Battle, killed more than his share. After the defeat, fled north with the others, and bided his time. Then, came down with fury. Attacked Erebor. 

P.S. Yeah, the now was referring to when I wrote the post.


----------



## Turgon

_'Warriors of old... their like has not been seen in the world again.'_

Is quite a familiar pattern in Tolkien's work, where each generation seems to be less than the one that came before it. Especially when it comes to the race of men. It's quite likely that a Gondorian would speak the same of his forebearers who lived during the glory days of the Sea-Kings which is only some 1500 years or so before the present day and right in the middle of the Third Age. Or a Rohirrim would have spoken the same of his people during the age of Eorl, and whose ancestors had a bit of a to-do with Scatha, another dragon of the Withered Heath.

Again the most plausable explaination is to be found right there in The Hobbit. We are told on the map right at the beginning of the book that the great worms came from the Withered Heath, Withered presumably because of the depredations of dragons, we are also told that the Withered Heath was a breeding ground for dragons, and can infer from that, that at some point dragon breeding was not something unheard of or especially rare. We are also told that Smaug came from the Withered Heath. The simplest conclusion to make is that Smaug was born there, grew up in its evirons, and the warriors he speaks of were warriors found somewhere close by. Either the ancestors of the Eorlings, wandering heroes (in The Hobbit we are told that in days of old such people were not uncommon), or perhaps even Dwarves or Mirkwood Elves. It's also entirely possible that like Numenoreans the lifespan of Dragons had diminished greatly and that Smaug is refering to the Dwarves of Erebor and the Men of Dale when refering to his youth. Though I think this less likely.


----------



## Elthir

For myself, with respect to that part of Smaug's speech under consideration, I think it's more likely that he refers to that which he just mentioned in the same paragraph. Anyway, here's another exchange for possible consideration.



> 'He may -- but he can't have used it for years.'
> 
> 'Why?'
> 
> 'Because it is too small. Five feet high the door and three may walk abreast' say the runes, but Smaug could not creep into a hole like that, not even when he was a young dragon, certainly not after devouring so many of the Dwarves and Men of Dale.'



Interpret as you like :*D

Incidentally, concerning the Silmarillion passage, I tried to locate the source and so far I can only find the following from Grey Annals (SY 260), included in a description of Glaurung as one of the Uruloki: Glaurung was 'yet young and scarce half grown (for long and slow is the life of those worms)...' The life of 'those worms' possibly refers to the Uruloki mentioned just before, or fire-dragons, rather than all dragons -- but I wouldn't press the point that this only properly refers to a specific kind of dragon, I'm just noting it here, having noticed the difference.

It's interesting that in the published Hobbit Thorin notes that Dragons live practically for ever, unless they are killed -- this was first altered in the 1960 Hobbit to '... as long as they live, five thousand years maybe' and then to '... guard their plunder as long as they live, a thousand years maybe, unless they are killed.'

Hmm, a thousand years maybe. 


There's another interesting revision in the 1960 Hobbit that Bard might like. In the published version: 'That would be no good', said the wizard 'not without a mighty Warrior, even a Hero. I tried to find one; but warriors are busy fighting one another in distant lands, and in this neighbourhood heroes are scarce, or simply not to be found. Swords in these parts...' Altered to: 'That would be no good', said the wizard 'not even for warriors of the Elder Days, who cannot now be matched. But we have discussed all that; and anyway we are not looking for a warrior in the Shire...' Of course there are arguably still at least some warriors around actually _from the Elder Days_ (albeit Elves not Dwarves or Men obviously). 

In any event I think it's interesting that in 1960 Tolkien went from practically 'for ever' (although that may just be a bit of 'fun phrasing' in any case), to five thousand (maybe), to one thousand (maybe). Even in 1960 it seems Tolkien could still change his mind with respect to certain dragon details (not all that surprising really). In my opinion 'practically for ever' was suitable enough, from a Dwarvish or Mannish perspective at least.


I think Turgon makes some good points as well.


----------



## Turgon

How long did it take for Glaurung to grow to full adulthood? The first time we see him he is not fully grown... and then perhaps a couple of hundred years later he is fully matured. Also when did Morgoth begin his work on Dragons? When he returns to Angband after stealing the Silmarils or before? Be quite interesting to know if we can put a date on the growing habits of dragons. For some reason I have it in my head that he began breeding them during the First Age, which would mean it only took around a few hundred years for even mighty dragons like Ancalagon to come into their prime.


----------



## Elthir

In Sun Year 155 Morgoth 'sought in his heart for new counsel, and he bethought him of dragons.' And next Glaurung, 'yet young and scarce half grown' appears in SY 260, and in SY 455 he 'came forth in his full might' In 472 'the strength and terror of the Great Worm were now grown great indeed.' 

This is all according to the Grey Annals, although I checked quickly and didn't look to see if any of the dates had been (possibly) notably tinkered with.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Again, isn't it more likely that the "warriors of old" refers to heroes we already know about? i.e. Elves who have seen the light of Valinor. Rather this than insignificant lesser men who Smaug certainly would have seen the likes of again. And the simplest conclusion is actually this: Smaug escaped the Great Battle, fled to the Withered Heath, and when rumours of treasure reached him, attacked. That involves the least speculation. I don't think the dragon life diminishes. The elves' lifespan doesn't. 

As to Glaurung's growth, that is exactly my point. It took 300 years for Glaurung to become "full-grown". 300 years!!! However, he would not refer to himself as old after that. It would be at least another 600, if not 1000 or so years until he could be called old.

As for the door and Smaug, I see it as this, they said. "_but Smaug could not creep into a hole like that, not even when he was a young dragon,_(which they actually had no idea of his size at the time)_ certainly not after devouring so many of the Dwarves and Men of Dale.'_ 

They were speaking of Smaug, and how he would never be able to fit through it, and then as they were speaking realized that the number of dwarves and men would make it even more impossible still to fit through. There is no distinct or even vague connection between young dragon and devouring.


----------



## Turgon

I think my theory involves the least speculation Bard...^^

To be honest I have trouble viewing the Vanyar as 'warriors of old'. They turn up for one battle that we hear practically nothing about and suddenly we are supposed to take them seriously? Also there were still mighty elves alive in Middle-earth at the time who had seen the Light of Valinor, some of whom had much more experience in the wars against Morgoth than the Vanyar did, so their like _was_ still around. Also why does Smaug wait until practically the end of the Third Age before making a treasure grab if he is so ancient? Why didn't he seize the treasure Scatha went on to take? Or any other number of hoards that would have been lying around? Given his proximity to Carn Dum why doesn't he aid the Witchking during his war with the Dunedain? Plenty of loot there for the taking no doubt. Could it be because he wasn't even born then? It's a possibilty.


----------



## Bucky

I think we just have to agree to disagree...

There's just two camps in Tolkiendom these days:

1. The "I think I'll go off on my own half baked theory & don't care what textual facts are presented to the contrary" camp (the larger). Which is why I tend to avoid the most famous Tolkien site on the web. :*rolleyes:

2. The "Let's see what Tolkien has to say about it in his books" camp. We're certainly in minority these days, but I find it more often than not on TTT.

I think Turgon makes some excellent points in his last two posts, as well as Galin, but I doubt Bard will ever budge an inch if experience in these matters has taught me anything.

And, I doubt very much that Glaurung's lifespan or growth/development differed much from Smaug's as Glaurung was 'The father of dragons' & Smaug, Ancalgon, Scatha et all proceeded from him.

It's clear from both Glaurung's life & Smaug's that a dragon grows to full maturity in about 300 - 400 years...

Meaning, they both have similar lifespans & genetic make-ups despite having certain differences in appearance in function: I guess like any species/sub-species would.

How this affects lifespan, I don't know, but I doubt it would much as the quotes are all similar and say "Dragons live forever..", not "Cold Drakes live forever..", etc....

I believe there may be a quote in Appendix A or B about dragons & I'm going to look for it.

Well, here's the exact quote, The Tale of Years:

TA 2570.. About this time, dragons reappear in the far North and begin to afflict the Dwarves.

I know, Smaug was just playing hide & seek for 6000 years. :*D


----------



## Elthir

> It's interesting that in the published Hobbit Thorin notes that Dragons live practically for ever, unless they are killed -- this was first altered in the 1960 Hobbit to '... as long as they live, five thousand years maybe' and then to '... guard their plunder as long as they live, a thousand years maybe, unless they are killed.'



I find this significant -- to my mind Tolkien, now revising _The Hobbit_ to much more fully bring it in line with _The Lord of the Rings_ (and thus the world of Middle-earth), is apparently thinking about how long dragons should live -- and he rather drastically reduces his first revised idea (that Thorin should note in the story)...

... and if Smaug was old, as he says, in Third Age 2,941, even if we double (!) what Thorin says to two thousand, which I think allows plenty of room for 'maybe', working backward Smaug was still hatched in the Third Age.


Based on this I don't even think the worm Nardor was at the War of Wrath! In fact I'm sure of this much :*D


----------



## Starbrow

'Warriors of old... their like has not been seen in the world again.'

The phrase "of old" is really pretty vague. I think it could cover a few hundred to thousands of years. 

"Their like has not been seen in the world again" could be taken literally, but I don't think it is far-fetched to imagine that Smaug could be boasting. He was a vain dragon.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Turgon said:


> I think my theory involves the least speculation Bard...^^
> 
> To be honest I have trouble viewing the Vanyar as 'warriors of old'. They turn up for one battle that we hear practically nothing about and suddenly we are supposed to take them seriously? Also there were still mighty elves alive in Middle-earth at the time who had seen the Light of Valinor, some of whom had much more experience in the wars against Morgoth than the Vanyar did, so their like _was_ still around. Also why does Smaug wait until practically the end of the Third Age before making a treasure grab if he is so ancient? Why didn't he seize the treasure Scatha went on to take? Or any other number of hoards that would have been lying around? Given his proximity to Carn Dum why doesn't he aid the Witchking during his war with the Dunedain? Plenty of loot there for the taking no doubt. Could it be because he wasn't even born then? It's a possibilty.


 
Okay I will just ignore Bucky's snide post because I really don't feel like dealing with his bias. 

Anyway Turgon, once again you are ignoring the other things I say. I said it _could_ have been the Vanyar. But I said it also could have been the Noldor. (Much more likely I think). The Noldor had the greatest part in the Wars of Beleriand, and while the exiled Noldor did not fight in the War of Wrath, the Noldor of Valinor as well as the Vanyar participated. The Noldor were the strongest in body and mind, which is why i think Smaug may be referring to them. And at the time of the Hobbit, there were very few High Elves around that had seen the light of Valinor. I can only think of Galadriel (although of course there were probably more. Just clearing that up because I know you would attack it), so it would be well within reason to assume that Smaug would believe virtually none were left. 

Also, did I say I have all the answers? How should I know why he didn't make an appearance? Why didn't the dragons make an appearance sooner (rhetorical question)? Maybe only the immense unrivalled wealth of Erebor piqued his curiosity. Maybe he was content with his homey cave until the rumours awakened his greed. Maybe he was his own master, certainly not subject to the Witch-king. Why didn't the other confirmed existing dragons aid the Witch-king? Why didn't they just fly the Ring to Mount Doom? (okay, off topic). I don't pretend to know everything. I'm just saying there is no irrevocable proof that Smaug wasn't present at the War of Wrath, and certain proofs line up with the theory he existed in that time period.



> Based on this I don't even think the worm Nardor was at the War of Wrath! In fact I'm sure of this much



Nardor was a realm in the far south. Numenoreans not of the Faithful escaped and established the realm of Nardor. It was their power that kept Sauron occupied while Gondor declined, delaying the inevitable assault.


----------



## Bucky

Bard:

My post is not meant to be snide, my style is almost always tongue in cheek...

But folks running wild with 'UUTs' (utter unsustainable theories ~ I borrowed that from the other site, lol) and not even listening when presented when textual facts is, uh, rather frustrating to say the very least.

But as I said, experience has taught me folks with UUT's hardly ever budge despite a mountain of facts from Tolkien's own works to the contrary.

I don't expect this to be any different & I despise cyber-arguments, so I'll bow out of this one as it spins in circles.


----------



## Elthir

> Nardor was a realm in the far south. Numenoreans not of the Faithful escaped and established the realm of Nardor. It was their power that kept Sauron occupied while Gondor declined, delaying the inevitable assault.



'Nardor' is a dragon name -- you're probably thinking of _Narsil,_ which has a different meaning.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Thanks Bucky. I don't feel like arguing with your kind. 

Galin. You know that Nardor existed. Nardor was the cause for the delay of Sauron's full scale assault on Gondor. However, the Nardorians were also the cause of the fall of the North Kingdom. Read the text.


----------



## Elthir

Bard the Bowman said:


> Nardor was the cause for the delay of Sauron's full scale assault on Gondor.



No, now you're thinking of _Narbeleth._ Different meaning still. And since this time of year would hardly hinder Sauron's assault, I fail to see the point.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Nardor wasn't around at the time of The Hobbit. It's scattered remnants survived. But the kingdom ended around the time of the Wainriders.


----------



## Elthir

Bard the Bowman said:


> Nardor wasn't around at the time of The Hobbit. It's scattered remnants survived. But the kingdom ended around the time of the Wainriders.



Well you must mean _Narwain_ 'New Sun (fire)' then, not Nardor. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

No not Narwain. Nardor. Clearly a difference between -dor and -wain. You must see this. 3 groups survived of Numenor. The Faithful, The Black Numenoreans, and Nardor. Elendil led the Faithful, I'm guessing Herumor was one of the leaders of the Black Numenoreans, and Amadril led the Nardorians.


----------



## Elthir

Bard the Bowman said:


> No not Narwain. Nardor. Clearly a difference between -dor and -wain.



Well you wrote the word wain, I simply responded; and as Narwain is attested by Tolkien it's still the best conclusion that that's what you mean. 

You opened the -dor, I just walked in.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Yes, I said Wainriders. The peoples that troubled Gondor for many years.


----------



## Turgon

I wouldn't take it too seriously Bard. Investigations like this should just be a bit of fun, and in fairness you are kind of ignoring any evidence put forward against your case too. Myself I do enjoy cracking the books out and looking through them for little snippets that might shed light on things that Tolkien didn't go into too much detail about, and that's the only reason I get involved in threads like this. For my own personal enjoyment. At the end of the day though, going back to the books is what it's all about. I've created tons of crazy theory threads on here over the years, and most have been disproved or have been rejected for lack of evidence, though they led to some interesting points being raised, so that's all to the good... job done in my opinion. When I first joined The Tolkien Forum all those years ago, I was an ardent Feanorian, with a lot of strong views on Tolkien's work, but after debating, interacting, and reading various threads on here, and being involved in the many MSN conversations that we used to have nightly (seriously sometimes you'd have six or seven conversations going with various different groups of TTF members) my views on Tolkien have changed completely. Participating in various Role-playing threads lead me to research areas of Tolkien lore that had never interested me before, Gondorian history for instance. So I've always seen TTF as a way to explore new ideas rather than come to any definitive conclusions. So I've been viewing this thread in that light and have enjoyed it for several reasons. We seem to have put a date on the length of time it takes for a dragon to mature, Galin has posted some good quotes which had passed me by regarding the lifespan of dragons, and some interesting questions have been raised. My own questions were rhetorical too by the way...^^ Erk... I did have a point at the beginning of this post... but it's gone now. Oops!


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Well I'm glad to hear you've had a good time. Anyway, you are dead wrong about me ignoring the, oh let's call it evidence, against me. I do not ignore it. I respond to it. You however completely leave out my points, which would easily refute your statements. You see, debating or discussing is most beneficial when there is an exchange and understanding of ideas, not just repeating your own points while taking no notice of the other person's arguments.


----------



## Prince of Cats

Bard the Bowman said:


> Well I'm glad to hear you've had a good time. Anyway, you are dead wrong about me ignoring the, oh let's call it evidence, against me. *I do not ignore it. I respond to it.*


 (bold added for emphasis)

Bucky laid down this one:



Bucky said:


> Well, here's the exact quote, The Tale of Years:
> 
> TA 2570.. About this time, dragons reappear in the far North and begin to afflict the Dwarves.
> 
> I know, Smaug was just playing hide & seek for 6000 years. :*D



Which got a 


Bard the Bowman said:


> Okay *I will just ignore* Bucky's snide post because I really don't feel like dealing with his bias.


(bold added for emphasis)

Either the bias or the game-changer  

Mated with Galin's insightful revisions (writings by Tolkien) in this post that seem to define a reasonable limit to a dragon's lifespan, Smaug being at the War of Wrath seems like a far stretch.

Personally, I've always felt that it's clear from the talk about Smaug and the door between Elrond and Gandalf that Smaug was relatively young (relative to his current age or strength perhaps) during the taking of Erebor compared to their present time. But personally, I've also felt the famously underfed and sideways-flapping Narwain (possible alias: Nardor?) survived into the fourth age, and if you look at the facts its impossible not assert that it lives today


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Once again, people are distorting the truth. You Prince of Cats, are guilty of this. I said I do not ignore the so-called evidence. I was ignoring Bucky's sarcastic remark, because it is impossible to have a collected debate with that sort of banter present. Please, think before you write Prince of Cats. Take as much time as you need, but please, think things through.


----------



## Bucky

All kidding & 'snideness' or 'tongue in cheekness' aside, did I not foretell that we'd get nowhere with Bard?

I think I'll change my handle to Malbeth the Seer. ;*)


----------



## Bard the Bowman

That Bucky is a malicious remark. Please keep it to yourself. If nothing constructive can come from you, it is in your best interests to keep silent. Please, do so.


----------



## Bucky

Bard, you are taking this MUCH too seriously....

I said to myself when I saw your last comment, "What is this guy, like 20 years old?"

Sure enough, I check your birthdate & Bingo! :*eek:

Malbeth strikes again!

Lighten up...

This is a book we're talking about & not anything to get upset about ~ we're just having fun; or should be.

Wait until perhaps you've had about 20+ operations, a year in bed with no knee, almost died a half dozen times or more and had a disabled kid or two.

Relax & enjoy the ride. ;*)

Then you'll understand how silly getting upset about this stuff is my friend. :*o


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Bucky I'm not upset. I just don't understand why you always have to try and create trouble. If this is so trivial, then why are you still here trying to be an agitator? Please, if this is such an unimportant subject, then don't try using it to bring someone down. All right? If you want to have a rational discussion, fine.


----------



## Bucky

Bard: Please forgive me for acting like a pompous ass.

Now, will you address my questions. ;*)

BTW: I'm serious about the first part....

Uh, and the second. :*p


----------



## Bard the Bowman

You are forgiven for your unbecoming behaviour. I don't understand though what questions you want me to address.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

I guess Bucky retreated back into his shell. However, now we understand that Smaug could have been in the War of Wrath.


----------



## Prince of Cats

Bard the Bowman said:


> I guess Bucky retreated back into his shell. However, now we understand that Smaug could have been in the War of Wrath.


 
Bard, you are so clearly trolling and have been for the last couple months that it's outrageous. I refuse to keep my mouth shut about it when you repeatedly rub **** in our faces when we try to give you the benefit of the doubt

:*down


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Prince of Cats said:


> Bard, you are so clearly trolling and have been for the last couple months that it's outrageous. I refuse to keep my mouth shut about it when you repeatedly rub **** in our faces when we try to give you the benefit of the doubt
> 
> :*down


 

This coming from the guy who picks and chooses what he wants to hear? Give me a break. You're as bad as Bucky. Galin I can take because I know he's just horsing around, but you actually think you have a valid argument and that is what irritates me.


----------



## Troll

Hi everybody. This is my first post on the site, and actually, I registered just to put in my $0.02 on this topic.

We all know that Nardor was the name of one of the princes of Doriath, so Bard, can you please put to rest all this silly nonsense about Nardor being a dragon? I'd really like to discuss the subject of Smaug more, but it's incredibly distracting for this unrelated side conversation to be going on about a subject that's so plainly obvious. Will you please stop derailing your own thread with your constant and unfounded references to Nardor the dragon?


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Troll, you suit your name. I honestly hope you don't actually believe I started this Nardor the dragon business, and I think you're just horsing around since you asked it twice. If you are just trolling, then please keep silent. 

If you actually think I started it, go back into the thread and look. Don't act like an ignorant slob. Do the research. 

By the way, if you think Nardor was the name of a Doriath prince (which it wasn't) please provide the textual evidence.

I kind of get the feeling you're Galin and you created another user just to be stupid. You might be Bucky, but Galin is far more likely.


----------



## iluvatarin

Thank you Bard. I find your idea intriguing and quite plausible.


----------



## Elthir

Bard the Bowman said:


> I kind of get the feeling you're Galin and you created another user just to be stupid. You might be Bucky, but Galin is far more likely.



I'm not even sure this is allowed, but I only have one account in any case.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

iluvatarin said:


> Thank you Bard. I find your idea intriguing and quite plausible.


 
Uh, thanks iluvatarin. Just out of curiousity, which idea was it? Smaug in the War of Wrath, or Galin making another account called "Troll"?

That's fair Galin. It's just that Troll said he registered to put in his two cents on this topic. And he was so hung on the Nardor the dragon subject that it seemed, like you, he didn't actually believe it and was just trying to provoke me.


----------



## Troll

Bard the Bowman said:


> If you actually think I started it, go back into the thread and look. Don't act like an ignorant slob. Do the research.
> 
> By the way, if you think Nardor was the name of a Doriath prince (which it wasn't) please provide the textual evidence.


I have consulted my reference materials, and I'm embarrassed to say that I was mistaken. The prince of Doriath I was thinking of was in fact Elmo; I'm sure you understand the cause for confusion.

Rather, It's plain to see to anyone possessed of a copy of _The Shaping of Middle-Earth _that Nardor was meant, in some early sketch of the legendarium, to be one of the islands left in the Great Sea after the wreck of Beleriand.



Bard the Bowman said:


> I kind of get the feeling you're Galin and you created another user just to be stupid. You might be Bucky, but Galin is far more likely.





Bard the Bowman said:


> It's just that Troll said he registered to put in his two cents on this topic. And he was so hung on the Nardor the dragon subject that it seemed, like you, he didn't actually believe it and was just trying to provoke me.


Now see here my good man, whatever issues you may have with the Isle of Nardor, I don't see the need for you to resort to such gross ad hominems; I'll have you know that I don't know this Galin fellow from Adam and I expect an apology for your rudeness.

Furthermore, you're dragging the discussion ever-further off-topic with all this business about Nardor the dragon, which we have by now _firmly _established as a mere flight of fancy.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Troll, once again you are living up to your name. I never said Nardor was a dragon. Look back into the thread and stop acting like an ignoramus. I know you're just trying to provoke me, but grow up and stop acting like a child. 

However, it is interesting that you should say Nardor is an island. First of all, we clearly know that Nardor was a land in the far south inhabited by a group of Numenoreans who escaped the Downfall. However, these people were not situated on Andor. They actually had established themselves "on an unnamed island in the sea" from which the sharp-sighted could see the peaks of Numenor. They were informed of Ar-Pharazon's assault on Valinor, and they saw the destruction. They were fearful, and left this unknown island. Lucky for them, because when the Valar found out that Numenoreans other than the Faithful had escaped, they asked Iluvatar to destroy this island which he did. Many perished in that great ruin as well. 

Now, did they name their great realm after their island? Possibly. 

Now Troll, I suggest you go back into this thread and see who exactly brought Nardor up. If you keep acting like an idiot I will simply put you on ignore.


----------



## Troll

Bard the Bowman said:


> Troll, once again you are living up to your name. [...] stop acting like an ignoramus. [...] grow up and stop acting like a child. [...] If you keep acting like an idiot [...]


I have yet to hear from you either an apology for your previous rudeness or even an on-topic post, my good man. Rather, you prefer to heap yet more abuse on my humble self. I daresay that every man has his limits; by my reckoning you are spoiling for a bout of Internet Fisticuffs.

Perhaps you should have entitled this thread _"Was Nardor the Dragon in the War of Wrath?"_ in light of the dogged persistence with which you now pursue the subject. Had I known that this was one of those threads in which the OP devotes himself only to the perpetuation of the oft-derided folly that Nardor was one of the great dragons, I should have steered clear at the outset.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

That's it. You're on my Ignore List now. I just don't feel like dealing with such a stubborn irritating pest. Galin, I retract my initial thought that you were Troll. I know that you may joke a bit about a subject just for fun, but I doubt that you would ramble on *pretending* to be serious like this lowlife.


----------



## Troll

Now that that unpleasant person has recused himself from the conversation, I think we can safely proceed to the subject at hand without any more nonsense regarding Nardor.

I think Bucky and Galin pulled out some pretty persuasive evidence that there is no way that Smaug could be _that_ old, at least not without a lengthy stretch of inactivity. I suppose we don't have any evidence either way vis a vis the hibernation of dragons, but there is the faint possibility that Smaug could have spent millennia sleeping in some cavern beneath the Misty Mountains or Iron Hills until awakening to plague the world once again in the middle part of the Third Age.


----------



## Starbrow

I don't think that name-calling contributes to thoughtful discussions of Tolkien's work.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Who are you talking to Starbrow? I haven't been name calling.


----------



## Troll

Starbrow said:


> I don't think that name-calling contributes to thoughtful discussions of Tolkien's work.


 
I couldn't agree more, old chap. It's a shame that certain people can't hold themselves to the standards of civil discourse on this grand Internet of ours.


----------



## HLGStrider

Galin said:


> I'm not even sure this is allowed, but I only have one account in any case.


 Not allowed and actually it at least used to be very easy for forum administration to tell when someone was doing this by tracking IP addresses. . .probably still is but the tech side of the forum is not my expertise. . .in other words, chances are if someone did this we'd know about it. BTW, this moderator is almost four days past her due date and sort of cranky, and so is more likely than usual to bite the heads off of forum members who she sees as causing trouble, so let's calm down on throwing around accusations and yes, please, if you can't play nicely, that's why we have the ignore buttons. . .


----------



## Bard the Bowman

That's true HLGStrider but just because its the same IP address doesn't mean its the same person. I mean, there could be two or three people in the same household who use the site. I'm sure you'd need a bit more evidence to go on than just the IP address.


----------



## HLGStrider

It's not direct proof in itself, but most of the time if you join a forum frequented by another member of your household (we've had siblings and spouses posting before), you make some claim to it; and it is also a good way to prove that someone is DEFINITELY NOT double accounting . . .unless they have two wifi networks they set up and are flipping them on and off between posts in which case they may just have way too much time on their hands.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Of course. 

Just in response to your edited earlier post, being cranky isn't an excuse to punish someone for nothing. I retracted my false accusation, and I am not aware of any others since then. I haven't done anything to stir up trouble. I've only ever been sincere.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Turgon said:


> Scatha also springs to mind here, and could, by a similar leap of the imagination, have been Smaug's father, brother, or son.


 
I was thinking about this and it brought an idea to mind. I decided I should dig up the quote for clarity. 

Can a cold-drake and an Uruloki spawn an Uruloki? Can you even cross-breed a cold-drake and a winged Uruloki? Does it need to be a winged fire-breathing dragon to spawn a winged Uruloki? Or can a wingless pair of Urulokis do the trick? Can two cold-drakes produce an Uruloki?

If anyone has any information on any of these questions, please let me know. I'm very interested in whether Tolkien laid out any "rules" for this. We know he already had interracial breeding, but as far as monsters go...?...I'm not sure. However, someone else may know the answer.


----------



## Troll

Bard the Bowman said:


> Of course.
> 
> Just in response to your edited earlier post, being cranky isn't an excuse to punish someone for nothing. I retracted my false accusation, and I am not aware of any others since then. I haven't done anything to stir up trouble. I've only ever been sincere.


Yes, I daresay you've been quite sincere in referring to me as a "rambling lowlife" and an "ignoramus" and an "idiot" and all sorts of other colorful things. To be sure, you have been a paragon of immaculate cleanliness in word and deed.



HLGStrider said:


> this moderator is almost four days past her due date and sort of cranky


 Congratulations to you, and my best wishes for a safe and healthy delivery.


----------



## Prince of Cats

HLGStrider said:


> It's not direct proof in itself, but most of the time if you join a forum frequented by another member of your household (we've had siblings and spouses posting before), you make some claim to it; and it is also a good way to prove that someone is DEFINITELY NOT double accounting . . .unless they have two wifi networks they set up and are flipping them on and off between posts in which case they may just have way too much time on their hands.


 
Actually, it's extremely easy to mask your IP with a proxy instead of using different actual source IP addresses (like you're talking about with using a neighbor's WAN link over wireless). Anyone could go to proxy.org and hide their true source IP address from the forum moderators and create a multitude of accounts that appear to be from around the globe. With such routing services and the ease of use through the browser anyone with a minute of training could do this - not much technical aptitude beyond reading required.

On the flip side is what Bard mentioned - two legitimate users on the same IP address. This can happen all the time because campuses and businesses, much like home users, don't want to pay for a whole block of public IP addresses - they buy one or a few links to the internet and route all their internal traffic through them. As such, it could look like hundreds of members here are all puppet accounts when in fact they are all unique people but are all attending the same university and are NAT'ed through the same IP address - as far as TTF's server is concerned you're all one person (the university's firewall).


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Not meaning to nitpick, but i was wondering if we could return to the original subject of discussion. I think I'm being completely fair here.

P.S. You will forgive me Prince of Cats, if I am, as you so aptly put it, "rubbing **** in your guys' faces".


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Well I see the subject has died, but I hope that with some new opinions we can bring it back to life. So if you haven't posted here yet, please post. I'm trying to squeeze every last ounce of juice out of this thread. If you want I will reiterate my points.:*up


----------



## Bucky

I don't think that name-calling contributes to thoughtful discussions of Tolkien's work.

*But, this IS the internet afterall. ;*)

BTW: This thread is more worn out than Smaug would've been at the time of The Hobbit...

Had he been in the War of Wrath. :*D*


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Did you even read my post Bucky? First of all, I admitted it had died. Second of all, I said I wanted to revive it and squeeze every ounce of juice out of it. Thirdly and most importantly, I wanted new people to post. Seeing as how you have just spewed out more than your fair share of garbage here, I don't think you fall in that category. Of course I would not be adverse to you posting, after all I am not the one who makes that decision, but your last post was nothing but useless and lame.


----------



## Troll

Lovemuffin said:


> ... my [...] last post was nothing but useless and lame.


 
Are we really going to dredge up this nonsense about Nardor the dragon again? :*confused:


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Even though you're on my ignore list Troll, I decided to view your post because I thought you might actually have something constructive to say. Big mistake. Once again, you amazed me with a post whose level of stupidity I have not witnessed before.


----------



## Gandalf White

Troll said:


> Are we really going to dredge up this nonsense about Nardor the dragon again? :*confused:


 
Apparently as long as he still has some juice in him.. :*p 

(Wow, I've missed these smilies..)

Anyway, I have to agree with the whole age argument, and whoever brought that up. It's just too long a time period between the two events.


----------



## Bucky

Bard:

You'd have a very, Very, VERY, *VERY* Hard time talking with the real Smaug. ;*)


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Why Bucky? Because I'm honest in a blatantly direct sort of way?


----------



## Troll

I see you made a typo there. Let me get that for you. :*D



Lovemuffin said:


> Why Bucky? Because I'm *hostile* in a blatantly direct sort of way?


----------



## Bucky

:*confused:
:*D
:*mad:
;*)


----------



## Gandalf White

Bucky said:


> Bard:
> 
> You'd have a very, Very, VERY, *VERY* Hard time talking with the real Smaug. ;*)


 
Substitute "Smaug" with "live people on an internet forum" and you've just about nailed it.;*) 

11 years ago with a large member body, and much more divisive topics (!), and still people were much more civil. 

There is no way Smaug lived thousands of years to appear in The Hobbit. That's fairly obvious.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Please explain Gandalf.


----------



## Gandalf White

Bard the Bowman said:


> Please explain Gandalf.


 
The Second Age was 3,441 years long. The Third Age progressed 2,941 years before Smaug was slain by your namesake. Even excluding any theoretical lifespan in the First Age, this would make Smaug 6,382 years old at the time of his death. As a previous poster helpfully noted, Tolkien scaled back the number of years that dragons lived from a vague human guesstimate, to a more universal "1000 years." While I imagine this is not a scientifically precise statement, it does rule out a 6000 year old dragon.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Well at least you are presenting your argument in a respectable manner. However, there is one concern I would like to bring to light. Glaurung is a Maia spirit, correct? It states in the Silmarillion that he spoke by the evil spirit that was in him. So if dragons are Maia, then wouldn't they be immortal? And wouldn't the offspring be immortal as well? 

Also, there are many irregularities in the hobbit. Elrond is described as a man, with some elvish blood, even though we know that he is certainly more elvish than man, not to mention he is immortal as well. Now certainly the passage that I bring up to defend myself could be one of those. All I'm trying to do is get to the truth. Is it not possible that the description in the hobbit could be simply be an irregularity (one of them)? Is it conceivable that it might just be a sizeable term for children, to put the age into perspective, as the book was written for them.


----------



## Gandalf White

Bard the Bowman said:


> Glaurung is a Maia spirit, correct? It states in the Silmarillion that he spoke by the evil spirit that was in him. So if dragons are Maia, then wouldn't they be immortal? And wouldn't the offspring be immortal as well?



In answer to that, I give you these two (incredibly interesting) threads: 

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?19448-Glaurung-Maia-or-No
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?9868-Who-would-win-Smaug-or-a-Balrog/page4

If I may be so bold as to summarize them, the knowledgeable Ulairi comes to two conclusions relevant to this thread:
1) It is highly likely that Glaurung was a Maia, although a lesser Maia.
2) This status would not survive reproduction.



> Also, there are many irregularities in the hobbit. Elrond is described as a man, with some elvish blood, even though we know that he is certainly more elvish than man, not to mention he is immortal as well. Now certainly the passage that I bring up to defend myself could be one of those. All I'm trying to do is get to the truth. Is it not possible that the description in the hobbit could be simply be an irregularity (one of them)? Is it conceivable that it might just be a sizeable term for children, to put the age into perspective, as the book was written for them.



I would have to see that exact Hobbit quote, as I'm currently away from all of my books. Regardless, Elrond is in fact of half-elven heritage so it's not too far off. 

With regards to dragon's ages, the first description of dragons living forever found in The Hobbit is an excellent child's term. The fact that Tolkien later revised this phrase (not once, but twice) is telling for several reasons. First is the fact that it went from "forever" to "1000 years," a decidedly more concrete term. Second, and more important, is the fact that these age revisions were made as Tolkien was expanding/furthering the world initially created in The Hobbit. This indicates that Tolkien decided to restrict dragon's life spans for the entirety of his works. 

Basically, in the original Hobbit Smaug _was_ immortal, but there was no War of Wrath, while in the later Hobbit there was indeed a War of Wrath, but Smaug _could not_ have existed during it. 

Convoluted, but very interesting.


----------



## Troll

To expand on the past analyses linked to by Gandalf... 

There are only two (possibly three) occasions of Maia reproduction on which we have any significant evidence to make a judgment.

One is the case of Melian and Thingol. Luthien was born of a Maia, yet was not one herself. Even if Glaurung were an embodied spirit, I doubt his descendants were pure-blood Ainu; half-breeds like Luthien would probably always take after the mundane parent, since it is certainly beyond Morgoth's (or anyone less than Eru's) power to bring forth new Ainu spirits.

The second case is Ungoliant. Shelob is Ungoliant's descendant, presumably via mating with mundane spiders, and most decidedly _not_ a Maia. Whether she is able to speak or not is unknown (she could be incapable or simply without anything to say), but I don't think there's any basis to assign Shelob Ainu status. That said, even if Glaurung were a Maia or some wacky permutation of that, his descendants would not be so - even if they do retain his capacity for speech and evil intent.

Third, if you accept the hypothesis that the progenitor Orc-spirits were the least of Maiar - Ainu fëar utterly debased by Morgoth's corruption, filled with his malicious spirit (ëala) towards all life, and bound into hröa in the shapes of the Elves whom Morgoth had ruined (this last to account for the textual statement that Orcs were once, in some sense, elves, though admittedly this interpretation takes the statement as meaning "in some abstract conceptual sense the _idea_ of Orcs was derived from the ruin of some Elves") - then you have a case of embodied Maia breeding with embodied Maia (and, later, captive Elves/Men) to create speaking, thinking beings who have some kind of will and identity of their own, but are intrinsically corrupt and totally mortal.

I think it's most likely that Glaurung himself was an embodied Maia, but that his descendants - likely produced either asexually or through breeding with lesser reptiles (ugh) - are mortal beings imbued with the same malice but not the same spirit. Tolkien's musings on a dragon's 1000-year lifespan definitely apply here.

And, reading those old threads, I came across a quote of Bucky's that I find apropos: *

"**I think that's better than the trend these days to 'Well, I believe this' theories everywhere that tend to ignore the text though."*


----------



## Bucky

The masochist in me requires I jump back in....

Bard, have you read HoME Volume Ten?

If so or not, I refer you to 'Myths transformed', the incredibly insightful essays by JRR Tolkien (just to separate between father & son in HoME) that go into some very cool things about 'spiritual power' of 'spiritual beings', more precisely, the enemy....

Without getting into too much, which is rather complex & involved, the most important info in there for us in regards to Smaug & the 'evil spirit that was in him' is this part, taken from Myths Transformed # 7...

Well, as I type with one finger, read the whole series for yourself, lol...

Even super orc-captains of the First Age were 'lesserspirits' corrupted by Morgoth...

There's a quote in there somewhere that states definitely that as generations remove from the original, the 'Maiar spirit' lessens each generation & isn't immortal...

Just look at the Kings of Numenor & Gondor coming from Melian for example.

The same goes with Smaug from Glaurung...

And in fact, there's no proof that Glaurung's spirit was even on a par with a Balrog, let alone Sauron...

What's that? Sauron greater than a Balrrog? Damn straight!

Here it is:

Myths Transformed VII:

_'Melkor had corrupted many spirits - some great, as Sauron, or less so, as Balrogs.'

_ and following immediately:

_The least could have been primitive (and much more powerful & perilous) Orcs;but by practising when embodied procreation they would (c.f. Melian) {become} more & more earthbound, unable to return to spirit-state (even demon-form) until released by death and they would dwindle by force._


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Well all right, sorry I'm late, but those threads take time to read. 



Gandalf White said:


> In answer to that, I give you these two (incredibly interesting) threads:
> 
> If I may be so bold as to summarize them, the knowledgeable Ulairi comes to two conclusions relevant to this thread:
> 1) It is highly likely that Glaurung was a Maia, although a lesser Maia.
> 2) This status would not survive reproduction.



Please look back to my statement that you quoted. Did I say anything about Maiar status being retained? No. I was only making a case for immortality being retained, which it certainly would have. Luthien was unquestionably immortal. Maiar parents do not hinder immortality, but rather enhance it.

Also, Ulairi is not Tolkien. Why are you taking what he says as gospel truth? I found many absurd points of his in those threads. Many.



Gandalf White said:


> I would have to see that exact Hobbit quote, as I'm currently away from all of my books. Regardless, Elrond is in fact of half-elven heritage so it's not too far off.



Not too far off? Since when did we accept "not too far off"? I will give you the quote:

"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 goblins and the elves and the first men in the North. In those days of our tale there were still some people who had both eves and heroes of the North for ancestors, and Elrond the master of the house was their chief.

He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord..."

In the Lord of the Rings he is clearly represented as an actual elf-lord.

Another thing on this note, Elrond refers to Turgon as "the king of Gondolin", not, "my ancestor" or whatever. I understand that at this point Turgon's connection with Elrond was not in place, but I'm just bringing it up to show you the inconsistency of the text and the possibility of other occurrences. 



Gandalf White said:


> With regards to dragon's ages, the first description of dragons living forever found in The Hobbit is an excellent child's term. The fact that Tolkien later revised this phrase (not once, but twice) is telling for several reasons. First is the fact that it went from "forever" to "1000 years," a decidedly more concrete term. Second, and more important, is the fact that these age revisions were made as Tolkien was expanding/furthering the world initially created in The Hobbit. This indicates that Tolkien decided to restrict dragon's life spans for the entirety of his works.
> 
> Basically, in the original Hobbit Smaug _was_ immortal, but there was no War of Wrath, while in the later Hobbit there was indeed a War of Wrath, but Smaug _could not_ have existed during it.
> 
> Convoluted, but very interesting.



Do you have any proof this is the reason Tolkien made the revision? From what I can see, it could have been made simply to improve the text. Thorin is making this claim, so it is simply his interpretation, correct? Would it be fair to say that he has been involved with and probably only learned about lesser dragons up to this point, and the earliest dragons he would have learned about would have been around the time of Scatha. The dwarves would definitely not forget that. And that was about 1000 years ago. However, if you have *direct* evidence Tolkien made this revision to restrict the lifespan of dragons my argument would be refuted completely.

Also, if this was made to restrict dragons' lives, why was Glaurung still made immortal? I hardly think Tolkien was concerned about dragons being immortal. 



Bucky, I'm going to respond to you for the last time. You're simply becoming irritating with your spite and insincerity, and I'm not going to put up with it. Kings of Numenor coming from Melian? Sure. BECAUSE THEY BRED WITH MORTALS!!! DUH!!!

BTW, Glaurung was greater than any balrog.


----------



## Bucky

Bard, how is quoting things from HomE being spiteful?

You're really making quite a pleasant name for yourself around here.


Whatever pain causes you to act like this, I pray you get over it.

Seriously.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Bucky, you've been spiteful in the past, and I can detect sarcasm in your last post, although certainly not as pronounced as in previous posts.


----------



## Bucky

There wasn't any, Bard...

You just see things that way.

you've really got to grow up & get past whatever this is that makes you react to folks this way..

As you can see from other folks, you're really making yourself rather unpopular around here.

PM me if you really want help.

I'm not kidding.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Whatever Bucky. Surely you must have realized that I'm not concerned with popularity. I'm here to discuss and if that's unpopular, so be it. And I'm sorry, but yes I do react in a harsh manner when people insult me and make disparaging comments about me. That's my flaw, if it even is a flaw.


----------



## Bucky

Answer my last post about HoME, dude...

Be civil or be ignored.

Your choice.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

First of all, I couldn't find a question in your post Bucky. Secondly, I'm not arguing with your post (that much). I agree that a Maia doesn't necessarily beget a Maia, but certainly the immortality is not in question. Look at Luthien. And then look at Dior. Dior was the son of Beren and Luthien, and should have been mortal. However, he was an immortal elf. I can only speculate that his Maiar ancestry had something to do with this, but it's all besides the point. 

Anyway, like I said earlier which you obviously didn't read, Melian's Numenorean descendants were mortal because her elven descendants mingled with mortal men. Let me just fire off some quick points in response to your post.

Melian's descendants cross-bred with mortals, therefore eliminating immortality.

Smaug most likely wasn't a Maiar, but still would have been immortal, unless Glaurung bred with a mortal lizard or serpent but I highly doubt Melkor would have used lesser beings to create his most dreadful legion. 

Glaurung's spirit definitely greater than any Balrog's. Sauron's? I doubt it. (However this is not the thread for this discussion).

Your quote at the end says nothing about immortality, but is simply referring to Ainur and the physical form they "clothe" themselves in.

And be careful Bucky, you're close to joining Troll.


----------



## Bucky

Bard, my post was 'piggy-backing' on Gandalf's & Trolls previous posts, which were in response to your statement that is here pasted:

_However, there is one concern I would like to bring to light. Glaurung is a Maia spirit, correct? It states in the Silmarillion that he spoke by the evil spirit that was in him. So if dragons are Maia, then wouldn't they be immortal? And wouldn't the offspring be immortal as well?_

Here, we've brought much evidence that proves that Maiar spirits that are reproduced in generations do not indeed live forever as they move down generations. That was the point of my info from Myths Transformed. If needed, I'll dig deep enough to find the exact quote that says it......

Your deduction on Dior is flawed: Dior has one parent that is an Elf as well as a Man ~ he therefore could be Elven or Human; not necessarily must be one or the other. Such is always the case in the Half-Elven. Where did you ever get the idea that immortality is out for them?

We've quoted many, many sources, and you've said that Thorin says dragons live forever in The hobbit. But the actual quote is:

(which is PRACTICALLY forever, unless they are killed).

not, 'forever'..... :*eek:

And Glaurung's spirit greater than a Balrog's?

That's simply conjecture; not fact...

There is nothing in the published Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The Children of Hurin or History of Middle-earth, most of which I've been reading for over a decade before you were born (not to put you down, but just to show my familiarity with the material) to give one itsy-bitsy inkling that this is the case.

That conclusion, I am afraid, can only be reached by opinion, not any textual facts.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Slow down there Bucky. First of all I didn't read Troll's post, as he is on ignore. This is what I hate about forums, you have several different arguments crammed into one post. I will deal with the Maiar issue first. 

When has a half-elven being ever been immortal? The only exception was Earendil, and he was just that, an EXCEPTION!!!!! When other than Dior has the offspring been immortal? Don't count Elrond. You know he is more elf than man. The Valar treated Earendil as a one time thing. A rarity. He was a man to begin with, and they made him immortal. 

Listen here, Dior came from two mortal parents. THEY WERE BOTH MORTAL!!!! Sometimes I feel as if you don't read every word I say. 

I'm not arguing with your point that Maiar might not beget Maiar. I just think that immortality doesn't necessarily fade, certainly not within close generations. And if Smaug was at the time of the War of Wrath, then it certainly is within the realm of possibility that he is immortal. 

Excuse me, but I never used Thorin's quote as evidence. I only ever used it as evidence for your side, and I refuted it. Please, do not distort facts. 

Glaurung greater than Balrogs? Well to be honest I was hoping that it would open up another thread. I won't debate it here though. 

As for your comment referring to my age, how is that not a disparaging remark? Not meant to put me down? Are you kidding me? You obviously know it's questionable, which is why you put in the explanation, so why even put it in? If you wanted to show your familiarity (which to be honest isn't impressive at all) couldn't you have just said, "I've been reading these books for 30 years". Why bring my age into it? Grow up and don't be a jerk. Why make this personal? This is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. One more quip like that out of you, and you'll be on my ignore list with Troll.


----------



## Bucky

Bard:

1. Please add me to ignore. You're much too angry and sensitive to have a constructive discussion with. It's not only counterproductive, it's just a plain bummer.

2. you ever heard the online expression "Don't feed the trolls"? I'm through feeding _you_ unless you GROW the _ _ _ _ up and stop taking everything so personally when nothing personal is meant. Can you fill in the blank? ;*)

My father used to have a saying when I was young & a bit like you: "You're right & the whole world is wrong."

Think about it; perhaps it might help.

And, just to finish things off:

Melian's offspring weren't immortal?

Dior came from TWO mortal parents?


Silly me; All this time, I thought Luthien was an Elf Princess! :*rolleyes:


Perhaps you should reread The Silmarillion & 'The Tale of Beren & Luthien' where it is clearly stated over & over & over:

'Luthien is an elf princess'

Chapter 10, 'Of the Sindar: ''And at the end of the first age of the Chaining of Melkor (of three) ... Luthien was born..' ~ wow, that's a long time for a human to live.

'Of the Fifth Battle':
'So it is alone of the Eldalie (Eldar) She (Luthien) has died indeed......'


You don't have the first clue about the Half-Elven...

They ALL were Elven unless they chose to be men: Earendil, Elwing, Dior, Elrond, Elros, Earendil, Elladan, Arwen, Ellrohir, etc. ~ all live forever unless they chose to be counted human & then live a human life span from that point forwards.

Now, just pretend I'm Troll, please.

Or, start acting civil.

PERIOD.

I'll know when I read your next post...

Because I'll ignore YOU if not.


----------



## Gandalf White

No, Tolkien purposefully changed the text from "practically forever" to "1000 years" in order to better get across his point that dragons were immortal. :*p

So Bard, while you were almost civil to me, I've seen more than enough of your little rants and temper tantrums across the forum--you are ignored from now on. I want what little time I get to spend on TTF to be friendly, enjoyable, and constructive, something that your posts make virtually impossible. Farewell and good luck! 

(And may you soon mature out of that hyper-antagonistic/hyper-defensive personality thing you've got going at the moment.)

:*)


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Done. You're done Bucky.

Luthien became mortal. Why wasn't Eldarion immortal? 

Didn't you hear what Mandos said to the other Valar about Earendil? "Shall mortal MAN step living upon the undying lands, and yet live?"

I guess old Mandos smoked a bit too much weed, because you definitely know more than him.

Anyway don't answer. I'm done with dealing with arrogant stuck-up snide close-minded ignorant egoists like yourself. 

You're on ignore. And not the silly ignore that this site provides, as it is useless. You're on my ignore. I will not respond to you. I will pretend you don't exist. Since the site's measures are inadequate, I will have to make do with my own.

As for you Gandalf, you provided no proof. Get lost. I don't like your attitude. I was completely civil with you and Bucky and yet you treat me like dirt.


----------



## Bucky

Bard the Bowman said:


> Done. You're done Bucky.
> 
> . I was completely civil with you and Bucky and yet you treat me like dirt.


 
No, somewhere in your past, somebody treated you like dirt & you think everybody treats you like dirt because of this.

I pray that you'll see this in time & be healed from this wound.

Godspeed.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

For viewers just entering the thread, let me just briefly outline my points that make the case Smaug could have been in the War of Wrath.



Smaug is a Winged Fire-breathing dragon, one of the terrors created by Morgoth to defeat the Valar. The Silmarillion states nearly all the dragons were destroyed in the Last Battle. Nearly, but not all.
Smaug said he felled the warriors of old, and their like has not been seen in the world again. Granted he could be referring to Girion and just be an idiot, but I think not. What fits perfectly is the elves of Valinor, in the War of Wrath; or the Edain, but most likely the elves. Finarfin's Noldor and/or the Vanyar. Certainly the Vanyar have not been seen again, and the Noldor who have seen Valinor? Very few left. Galadriel, Glorfindel, perhaps Gildor, but very few at the most, and secretive. Suffice to say Smaug would be mostly believed when he said their like is not in the world today.
As to the age factor, certainly a great dragon like Smaug would be immortal. We seem to all agree that the first brood of dragons, like Glaurung, was inhabited by Maiar spirits. If they reproduced, then their offspring, like them, would be immortal. Not Maiar spirits though. Look at Luthien; she came from an elf and a Maia, and was immortal.
As far as Thorin's revised comment, that is no proof. Thorin is just explaining to Bilbo to the best of his knowledge. And since Glaurung we know for sure is immortal, doesn't that render his comment faulty? Definitely so. It's not a rule.


So Smaug could have easily (well not easy for him) escaped the War of Wrath and hidden out with the other dragons in the North (maybe I'll start a thread about whether Scatha was in the War of Wrath), which we are explicitly told existed. 

Anyway, I'd be delighted to hear the thoughts from new thread people. Please, share your ideas.


----------



## Troll

Bard the Bowman said:


> Smaug is a Winged Fire-breathing dragon, one of the terrors created by Morgoth to defeat the Valar. The Silmarillion states nearly all the dragons were destroyed in the Last Battle. Nearly, but not all.


This is the very definition of circumstantial evidence. Obviously _some_ dragons had to have escaped, else there would be no dragons at all in the Third Age, let alone Smaug.



> Smaug said he felled the warriors of old, and their like has not been seen in the world again. Granted he could be referring to Girion and just be an idiot, but I think not.


Why is it that everyone who expresses an idea even slightly at odds with yours is "an idiot?" If I resurrected JRR himself and he told us he meant that phrase to refer to Girion, would you call him an idiot too?



> What fits perfectly is the elves of Valinor, in the War of Wrath; or the Edain, but most likely the elves. Finarfin's Noldor and/or the Vanyar. Certainly the Vanyar have not been seen again, and the Noldor who have seen Valinor? Very few left. Galadriel, Glorfindel, perhaps Gildor, but very few at the most, and secretive. Suffice to say Smaug would be mostly believed when he said their like is not in the world today.


It also fits the Men of the West in days of the Second Age, and the Last Alliance's great host in the Battle of Dagorlad, and the army of Gondor in its relatively recent days of glory - as is observed in the build-up to the Battle of the Morannon, even the great army raised by the men of Gondor and Rohan would be little more than the vanguard of the army of Gondor in its days of power.

The story of Middle-Earth is that of a broken world of ever-declining power and grandeur waiting to be healed. Every generation of Men that passed was a little less than the one that came before, until certified badasses like Aragorn and Frodo came along to whip humankind into shape.



> As to the age factor, certainly a great dragon like Smaug would be immortal. We seem to all agree that the first brood of dragons, like Glaurung, was inhabited by Maiar spirits. If they reproduced, then their offspring, like them, would be immortal. Not Maiar spirits though. Look at Luthien; she came from an elf and a Maia, and was immortal.


Look at Ungoliant's brood; they are not immortal.

Look at Orcs. They came from embodied Maia breeding with each other and with captured Elves and Men, yet they are not immortal.

Tolkien's observations on the "fissiparous" nature of evil are utterly applicable here. Melian the Maia can have children the usual way because she is not evil. Morgoth and the spirit that became Glaurung were evil. Apples and oranges, mate.

Also, have you considered that perhaps Luthien was immortal due to the Elf-blood rather than the Maia-blood? You have no evidence that if Melian had shacked up with, say, Hurin, the resulting offspring would be anything other than mortal.



> As far as Thorin's revised comment, that is no proof. Thorin is just explaining to Bilbo to the best of his knowledge. And since Glaurung we know for sure is immortal, doesn't that render his comment faulty? Definitely so. It's not a rule.


And, if we can't take Thorin's words at face value when he speaks of the lifespan of dragons, we can't have blind faith in the words of Smaug, who is much more deceitful to begin with. Perhaps in his own experience Smaug has not encountered any heroes lately, and considers his opponents to be "warriors of old" though we know that many heroes or former heroes still dwell in Middle-Earth (Thorin, Glorfindel, Elrond, Aragorn, Gandalf, Galadriel, Cirdan, etc etc). Perhaps Smaug is simply lying to make himself sound and feel important. If Thorin can be mistaken, I don't see why Smaug is automatically a paragon of factual correctness.

Furthermore we don't know for sure that Glaurung was necessarily immortal; Turin ended the experiment before the hypothesis could be confirmed.



> So Smaug could have easily (well not easy for him) escaped the War of Wrath and hidden out with the other dragons in the North (maybe I'll start a thread about whether Scatha was in the War of Wrath), which we are explicitly told existed.


And maybe I'll start a thread about whether Nardor was in the War of Wrath. I'd be delighted to hear your new thoughts on the subject.



> Anyway, I'd be delighted to hear the thoughts from new thread people. Please, share your ideas.


It's quite the shame, old sport, but it seems that the only people here are ones you've already alienated. I daresay one shudders to consider the implications of the fact that only a troll is willing to talk to you anymore.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Well seeing as how it looks like the Troll is the only one so far, I will go out on a limb and respond. Each paragraph corresponds to each of your points.

First of all, we agree some dragons escaped, thus creating the realm of possibility for Smaug to have been there. Check. We can put this to bed. No need to discuss it further. 

As far as the idiot post, I was referring to Smaug. I carried the subject over to the next sentence, hence "he" = Smaug. I was saying that if Smaug thought Girion's like had never been seen again in the world, he would be an idiot. Obviously if Tolkien said that it was referring to Girion, I would believe him and Smaug could have just been pumping himself up. But with no direct clarification, we must make educated guesses. Correct?

True true. Warriors of old certainly could refer to the warriors of the Last Alliance. That is my very point. But how would he fell them? We have no record or even indication that Smaug was in the Last Alliance, and certainly if he had been people would have taken note. However in the War of Wrath, we know for a fact there were dragons, and some did escape, so I think Smaug fits a lot more smoothly into that scenario than into the Last Alliance. I'm not saying that some Men of Numenor seeking adventure didn't journey up north and battle Smaug, but I'm just saying Smaug could very easily have been a part of the Last Battle. 

Shelob appears to be immortal. Ungoliant consumed herself, and Shelob lived a long long time. Now if Luthien was immortal because of the Elf-blood, how is that possible? Earendil was elf-blood and man-blood, yet Mandos refers to him as "MORTAL MAN". 

Thorin's comment, ah yes. Now I wasn't saying Thorin was mistaken. But I'm just saying that maybe he is referring to lesser forms of dragons, which he would certainly have learned about after they stole the dwarfs' hoards. Smaug was the last of the great dragons. But, as I said in one of my previous paragraphs, Smaug absolutely could have just been pumping himself up. 
Glaurung? well seeing as how it took him hundreds of years just to reach maturity, I think it's safe to say this puts him in line with Thorin's original statement; "practically forever". 

If you want to learn about Nardor, check out the informative thread in _The Golden Perch. _

Please keep your personal grievances off the forum. That would be much appreciated. Thank you.


----------



## Bucky

2 dragons escaped....

It's in HoME.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Weren't you done Bucky? I thought (and was hoping) we'd seen the last of you. If you can provide a quote, great. Not sure what it proves or disproves though.


----------



## Bucky

To quote Rodney Dangerfield in 'Back to school' when abused by the pompous ass teacher...

"Sorry, just trying to help." :*D


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Bucky, you're about as helpful as a barber shop on the steps of the guillotine. I wish you would cease posting. You're offensive and extremely annoying. Go and hang out with your soul mate Gandalf White.

All i want is a collected discussion.


----------



## Bucky

Then stop treating people like the enemy when they disagree with you.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Read over the thread and you'll find you were the instigator. You started it with your sarcastic remarks, or what I interpreted as sarcastic remarks because they looked exactly like the snide posts you've directed my way in the past.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Anyone new have any ideas on Smaug existing during the War of Wrath?


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Okay, just in case new viewers don't have to search through the thread to find the rationale for the argument, here they are. Let me just briefly outline my points that make the case Smaug could have been in the War of Wrath.


Smaug is a Winged Fire-breathing dragon, one of the terrors created by Morgoth to defeat the Valar. The Silmarillion states nearly all the dragons were destroyed in the Last Battle. Nearly, but not all.
Smaug said he felled the warriors of old, and their like has not been seen in the world again. Granted he could be referring to Girion and just be an idiot, but I think not. What fits perfectly is the elves of Valinor, in the War of Wrath; or the Edain, but most likely the elves. Finarfin's Noldor and/or the Vanyar. Certainly the Vanyar have not been seen again, and the Noldor who have seen Valinor? Very few left. Galadriel, Glorfindel, perhaps Gildor, but very few at the most, and secretive. Suffice to say Smaug would be mostly believed when he said their like is not in the world today.
As to the age factor, certainly a great dragon like Smaug would be immortal. We seem to all agree that the first brood of dragons, like Glaurung, was inhabited by Maiar spirits. If they reproduced, then their offspring, like them, would be immortal. Not Maiar spirits though. Look at Luthien; she came from an elf and a Maia, and was immortal.
As far as Thorin's revised comment (from "practically forever" to "maybe a thousand years"), that is no proof. Thorin is just explaining to Bilbo to the best of his knowledge. And since Glaurung we know for sure is immortal, doesn't that render his comment faulty and make "practically forever" true? Definitely so. It's not a rule.

So Smaug could have easily (well not easy for him) escaped the War of Wrath and hidden out with the other dragons in the North, which we are explicitly told existed. 

Anyway, I'd be delighted to hear the thoughts from new thread people. Please, share your ideas.


----------



## the--hobbit

Smaug was most likely NOT in the War of Wrath (or The Great Battle). From The Hobbit, Chapter XII, one paragragh ends with "in the town by the shore that in his young days had been called Esgaroth."
From the Complete Guide to Middle Earth and The Tolkien Companion, Smaug ransacked Erebor in the year 2770 of the Third Age, and was slain by Bard in 2941 of the Third Age. 
The War of Wrath occured near the end of the First Age. According to The New Tolkien Companion, the Second Age lasted 3,441 years. So if Smaug had been at the War of Wrath, he would have been over 6,200 years old when he first attacked Esgaroth and would NOT have referred to this time as "his young days", a mere 170 years earlier.:*down


----------



## Bard the Bowman

You are correct, but I think you should quote the whole sentence:

"He had a wicked and a wily heart, and he knew his guesses were not far out, though he suspected the the Lake-men were at the back of the plans, and that most of the plunder was meant to stop there in the town by the shore that in his young days had been called Esgaroth."

So you see, all that is saying is that in his young days, Lake-town was referred to as Esgaroth. It never says he attacked the town in his young days.


----------



## Gandalf White

the--hobbit said:


> Smaug was most likely NOT in the War of Wrath (or The Great Battle). From The Hobbit, Chapter XII, one paragragh ends with "in the town by the shore that in his young days had been called Esgaroth."


 
And when was Esgaroth founded?


----------



## Bard the Bowman

I'm not sure Gandalf. 

Anyway, I thought you were done here. I don't like your attitude and I think you owe me an apology before you enter back into this discussion. I don't want to speak with people who are rude to me and then just think they can jump back in just like that.


----------



## Troll

Bard the Bowman said:


> Anyway, I thought you were done here. I don't like your attitude and I think you owe me an apology before you enter back into this discussion. I don't want to speak with people who are rude to me and then just think they can jump back in just like that.


Demands for apologies are seldom heeded when made by those who refuse to make any themselves. :*D

Anyway, unless Esgaroth was founded in the First Age, I don't believe that Smaug would have referred to an encounter with its inhabitants as his "younger days." As a Winged Dragon, we know he could never have gone anywhere outside Thangorodrim prior to the War of Wrath, so he spent his entire youth in Angband. Even if he was the father of all surviving winged dragons, being the male of the two dragons to escape the Valar, he would necessarily have been an adult by the time he fled the ruin of Morgoth.

Esgaroth wa a prosperous town; its economy was based on trade and skilled crafts. We know it was founded by Middle Men who, if Tolkien's presentation of Numenor-Middle Earth relations is correct, didn't even know the difference between their asses and holes in the ground until the Numenoreans showed them sometime in the Second Age. Therefore, it seems persuasive to me that Esgaroth, and therefore Smaug, does not predate the Third Age.


----------



## Bucky

Pay not attention to the troll making sense behind the computer. :*o


----------



## Bard the Bowman

As I type with one finger, who are you talking to Bucky?


----------



## Gandalf White

Troll said:


> Demands for apologies are seldom heeded when made by those who refuse to make any themselves. :*D
> 
> Anyway, unless Esgaroth was founded in the First Age, I don't believe that Smaug would have referred to an encounter with its inhabitants as his "younger days." As a Winged Dragon, we know he could never have gone anywhere outside Thangorodrim prior to the War of Wrath, so he spent his entire youth in Angband. Even if he was the father of all surviving winged dragons, being the male of the two dragons to escape the Valar, he would necessarily have been an adult by the time he fled the ruin of Morgoth.
> 
> Esgaroth wa a prosperous town; its economy was based on trade and skilled crafts. We know it was founded by Middle Men who, if Tolkien's presentation of Numenor-Middle Earth relations is correct, didn't even know the difference between their asses and holes in the ground until the Numenoreans showed them sometime in the Second Age. Therefore, it seems persuasive to me that Esgaroth, and therefore Smaug, does not predate the Third Age.



Seems fairly well explained by you, Troll. As I've noted before anything I own that is Tolkien-related is completely inaccessible, so I've only been able to conduct some internet searches. The only thing I've come across is some LOTR wiki, which stated that Esgaroth was founded in the Third Age. There is no reference given, however, and as a rule of thumb I don't trust public wikis. Which is why Troll's detailed explanation is much appreciated. 

Also, a friendly nod in your direction, the--hobbit, for putting what one hopes is the final nail in this coffin.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Look, I don't want to discuss this with a close-minded arrogant insulting person like you Gandalf White. You said you were done and leaving. I'm patiently waiting for the--hobbit's reply, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't say anything if you have nothing constructive. Anyway seeing as how you have no access to Tolkien references pretty much anything you say would have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Troll, you raise a good point, but who says Esgaroth had to be founded and then bam!...prosperous town. Why couldn't it have existed and then when the Numenoreans showed them the goods, things turned a corner for the Lake-men. 

Also, "Smaug's young days doesn't mean he was actually present in Esgaroth. All it means is that when he was a young dragon, Lake-town was called Esgaroth. 

I must say though this has been the best (and only) point brought up against the theory. However, it doesn't eliminate the possibility, and all I'm arguing for is the possibility.


----------



## Gandalf White

BtB: I assume your last post is a response to me, and just realized that what Troll quoted here: 


> Anyway, I thought you were done here. I don't like your attitude and I think you owe me an apology before you enter back into this discussion. I don't want to speak with people who are rude to me and then just think they can jump back in just like that.


was most likely directed at me. 

I never said I was done with this discussion, or this forum. What I *did* say is that you are on my ignore list. I can no longer see your posts, except from bits and pieces quoted by others. If you want to engage in a discussion, you'll have to PM me.

I've been a member for a long, long time and I don't plan on changing that anytime in the future. As such, I can (and will) post on any thread I desire. And as long as it is on-topic and inoffensive I am certain the moderators will allow me to do so. So I'll be seeing you around. Or rather, you'll be seeing me.

Cheers. :*)

(Now let's find out more about this Esgaroth thing!)


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Gandalf White, please don't darken this thread with your insulting disparaging comments. I can only hope you actually have "Gone Missing".


----------



## Prince of Cats

Bard the Bowman said:


> Look, I don't want to discuss this with a close-minded arrogant insulting person like you Gandalf White. You said you were done and leaving. I'm patiently waiting for the--hobbit's reply, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't say anything if you have nothing constructive.











> I must say though this has been the best (and only) point brought up against the theory.


 
Hmm, except for all the ones on the other 7 pages of this topic :*D . One of those ignored points was touched on by Galin here



The Hobbit said:


> "There is one point that you haven"t noticed," said the
> wizard, "and that is the secret entrance. You see that rune on the
> West side, and the hand pointing to it from the other runes? That
> marks a hidden passage to the Lower Halls." (Look at the map at the
> beginning of this book, and you will see there the runes.)
> 
> "It may have been secret once," said Thorin, "but how do we
> know that it is secret any longer? Old Smaug has lived there long
> enough now to find out anything there is to know about those caves."
> 
> "He may—but he can"t have used it for years and years."
> 
> "Why?"
> 
> "Because it is too small. "Five feet high the door and three
> may walk abreast" say the runes, but Smaug could not creep into a
> hole that size, not even when he was a young dragon, certainly not
> after devouring so many of the dwarves and men of Dale."



If Smaug was 6 thousand years old, I don't think he would have still been growing. Between 2770 TA and 2941 TA I think Smaug would have worked off the extra fat from eating the men and dwarves of Dale and Erebor. I think this quote shows that he was still growing at the time. That he wasn't certainly not able to use the 5'x3' passage until after gorging himself on a kingdom or two clears any doubt for me


----------



## Gandalf White

Prince of Cats said:


>



I am insulted to be called the ketel (sic) here. ;*) Completely ridiculous. 




> Hmm, except for all the ones on the other 7 pages of this topic :*D .
> 
> If Smaug was 6 thousand years old, I don't think he would have still been growing. Between 2770 TA and 2941 TA I think Smaug would have worked off the extra fat from eating the men and dwarves of Dale and Erebor. I think this quote shows that he was still growing at the time. That he wasn't certainly not able to use the 5'x3' passage until after gorging himself on a kingdom or two clears any doubt for me



7 pages, yes. Clearly showing the futility of this "possibility."

The whole growth thing I can't really agree with, however. I feel like a dragon would either keep growing (like an alligator nowadays) or at the very least, not decrease in size.


----------



## Bucky

Just to jump on top of _POC's_ excellent thought about Smaug being smaller some 170 years prior upon sacking Erebor, this lines up well with Glaurung's rate of growth...

Grey Annals:

FA 260 Here Glaraung, the first of the _Uruloki, _ the fire-drakes of ther North, came from Angband's gate by night. He was young & scarce half grown (for long & slow is the life of those worms), but the Elves fled before him...Morgoth was ill pleased that Glaurung had disclosed himself over soon; and after his defeat there was a long peace well high 200 years.

455. _The Fell year._ ..Glaurung, the father of Dragons, came forth in his full might. 

So, depending on Glaurung's age when he first came forth in 260, he could be anywhere from 455-250 years old at the time of full maturity, with a life span of no more than 400 or so years to fully mature.

Since Smaug was young at the sack of Erebor, he could not have been over 400 years old at the time of his death & this therefore officially rules him out of being in The War of Wrath.


----------



## Elthir

Bard the Bowman said:


> (...) Also, "Smaug's young days doesn't mean he was actually present in Esgaroth. All it means is that when he was a young dragon, Lake-town was called Esgaroth.




Hmm, in any case there were no Sindarin speakers established in Thranduil's current home, at least, until well into the Third Age.


----------



## Troll

That's a good point. Esgaroth itself is not a Sindarin name, but Tolkien described it as "Sindarinized in shape" in "Words, Phrases and Passages in Various Tongues in _The Lord of the Rings_", in _Parma Eldalamberon_ XVII, p. 54 - whatever the heck that is. :*p

There would be no one around to Sindarinize it prior to Oropher's arrival in Mirkwood, which was after the end of the First Age. Therefore if in Smaug's "younger days" the settlement on the Long Lake was already called Esgaroth, no matter how ancient the settlement's founding, it is unlikely that Smaug could predate the Second Age, when Oropher arrived from Doriath.

So at the edge of reasonable circumstances, I suppose this evidence by itself does not say that Smaug can't be hoary enough to have been among the first generation of dragons bred in the Withered Heath. However, he was certainly not the sole male winged dragon to escape the War (I wish someone had a textual reference on this one - was it actually something Tolkien wrote up, or a margin scribble somewhere?).


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Lovely. I love it when I refute a point and then after a few pages people circle around and try to use it again. Let me quote it again, and please, be civil. I certainly don't want to converse with Gandalf White or Prince of Cats. 

"Because it is too small. 'Five feet high the door and three may walk abreast' say the runes, but Smaug could not creep into a hole that size, not even when he was a young dragon, certainly not after devouring so many of the dwarves and men of Dale."

There is no connection with his devouring and being a young dragon. They were listing the reasons chronologically. Look at it like this, "not even when he was a young dragon, _and now there's absolutely no way, _certainly not after devouring so many of the dwarves and men of Dale." That's how they're saying it.

Sometimes I think you people don't listen to the other side at all.


----------



## Troll

Bump for "name-of-Esgaroth" problem? :*confused:


----------



## Bard the Bowman

I believe i also answered this earlier, but whatever. If people wear ear-plugs, who am I to judge?

Lenwe's green elves? Denethor's green elves? They spoke the language of the Sindar. Even before Denethor's death many passed over the Ered Luin and further. And after his death many more went that way. Perhaps sometime in those hundreds of years some of them started referring to that town as Esgaroth. How should I know? Is it really so hard to believe that Denethor's people Sindarized the name? Or that maybe a small group left Doriath and Sindarized it? Come on. I think this is your weakest point and yet you are hung up on it.


----------



## Elthir

Troll said:


> That's a good point. Esgaroth itself is not a Sindarin name, but Tolkien described it as "Sindarinized in shape" in "Words, Phrases and Passages in Various Tongues in _The Lord of the Rings_", in Parma Eldalamberon XVII, p. 54 - whatever the heck that is.



A linguistic journal :*D


Yes in PE17 Tolkien notes that _Esgaroth_ is not Sindarin but perhaps Sindarized (or not noted in Sindarin) -- but in my opinion, both PE17 and Tolkien's various (and confusing) posthumously published statements about the language of the Silvan Elves take a back seat to what JRRT himself actually published in Appendix F; and it might be noted that according to _The Lord of the Rings_ itself, the Tawarwaith of Mirkwood and the Galadhrim of Lorien are not considered Eldar, nor their tongues Eldarin (differing from posthumously published notions). They are East-elves...

'... and the East-elves. Of the latter kind were most of the Elven-folk of Mirkwood and Lorien; but their languages do not appear in this history, in which all the Elvish names and words are of Eldarin form' Tolkien even footnotes this to point out 'exceptions' (of a kind) in the nomenclature of Lorien: '... Lorien, Caras Galadhon, Amroth and Nimrodel are probably of Silvan origin, adapted to Sindarin.'

Granted JRRT _might_ not have been thinking of Esgaroth, but this is arguably why Hammond and Scull (_The Lord of the Rings Reader's Companion_), simply refer to Esgaroth as Sindarin, as that's the easy implication of the author-published description.



> There would be no one around to Sindarinize it prior to Oropher's arrival in Mirkwood, which was after the end of the First Age. Therefore if in Smaug's "younger days" the settlement on the Long Lake was already called Esgaroth, no matter how ancient the settlement's founding, it is unlikely that Smaug could predate the Second Age, when Oropher arrived from Doriath.



And one wonders if Oropher and his Sindar had any contact with 'Esgaroth' before Thranduil -- there might be some obvious enough text that concerns this, or even a hint somewhere, I can't recall at the moment -- but in any event, Thranduil's caves await the Third Age (after various migrations from the south) according to _Unfinished Tales _(there are at least two texts that refer to the movements of these Elves).


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Good for Galin. Close-minded like all the rest!


----------



## Troll

Bard the Bowman said:


> I believe i also answered this earlier, but whatever. If people wear ear-plugs, who am I to judge?
> 
> Lenwe's green elves? Denethor's green elves? They spoke the language of the Sindar. Even before Denethor's death many passed over the Ered Luin and further. And after his death many more went that way. Perhaps sometime in those hundreds of years some of them started referring to that town as Esgaroth. How should I know? Is it really so hard to believe that Denethor's people Sindarized the name? Or that maybe a small group left Doriath and Sindarized it? Come on. I think this is your weakest point and yet you are hung up on it.


 
The Silvan Elves that never entered Beleriand would never have learned Sindarin on a large scale, as that tongue is native to Beleriand, so Lenwe's people are not a viable option. The Galadhrim and the Tawarwaith accepted Amroth and Oropher as lords only after those two kings passed east following the War of Wrath, and we are explicitly given that those people previously had no lords; any presence by Sindarin-speaking Laiquendi or Sindar was necessarily marginal at best and not capable of exerting sufficient social pressure to change the dominant language of the realms away from their native Quenderin dialects.

There would have been few speakers of Sindarin, none of any social power, east of the Misty Mountains prior to the end of the First Age. Hence, it is implausible that the name Esgaroth would predate the Second Age.

At this point Occam's Razor indicates that an argument as logically torturous as the one required to explain Smaug as the progenitor of all modern winged dragons is most likely incorrect.


----------



## Elthir

Bard the Bowman said:


> Good for Galin. Close-minded like all the rest!



If you are referring to your claims about the Green Elves of Ossiriand...


... Tolkien's history (_The Silvan Elves And Their Speech_, Unfinished Tales) is that the Silvan Elves -- in general -- of the Anduin Vale welcomed the migrating Sindar 'at the beginning of the Second Age', and in fact this is general and compressed information* 

It is even said in one scenario that Oropher had come among the Silvan Elves 'with only a handful of Sindar, and they were soon merged with the Silvan Elves, adopting their language and taking names of Silvan form and style' -- while another note relates that by the end of the Third Age Silvan Elvish had ceased to be spoken in Thranduil's realm. _If_ these are to be taken as consonant with each other, the implication is that Sindarin spread more slowly than even Oropher's initial influence.

As I say, Tolkien is not necessarily consistent in his posthumously published papers (including Letters) about Silvan Elvish, and yet the general outline in my opinion is (including the published implication that Esgaroth is Sindarin) that Sindarin or Sindarized nomenclature among the Silvan Elves of Mirkwood awaited the Second Age migration of Oropher and Thranduil.



I'm open to theories but that something is possible is not necessarily compelling enough for me to choose it over the scenario I believe Tolkien illustrates. I also don't find it very compelling that Tolkien introduced his 5,000 years revision -- revised again to 1,000 years -- for _The Hobbit_ in order to have Thorin be essentially wrong about _the_ dragon of the tale, as it is seemingly your response that maybe Thorin is talking about other dragons not Smaug.


Possible? Maybe. If it was ice I wouldn't skate on it however ;*) 


If you have text or argument to support your latest claims about the Green Elves please post whatever you have and I'll consider it. If all you have is the possibility of what you posted then I'm not buying it over the picture I think Tolkien has drawn.

__________

*just to note it, in the first edition of _The Lord of the Rings_ Celeborn had established a realm in the south of Greenwood, but this was revised for the Second Edition in the 1960s.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Finally some good sense from the opposition. I do not have textual evidence the Green Elves named Esgaroth. I do not have textual evidence they settled anywhere near Esgaroth. What I do have is textual evidence explicitly stating that the Nandor did in fact dwell in Middle-earth...for a long time. 

"Little is known of he wanderings of the Nandor, whom he [Lenwe] led away down Anduin: some, it is said, dwelt age-long in the woods of the Vale of the Great River, some came at last to its mouths and there dwelt by the Sea, and yet others passing by Ered Nimrais, the White Mountains, came north again and entered the wilderness of Eriador between Ered Luin and the far Mountains of Mist."

Now does this prove anything? Certainly not. Does it open doors? Yes. It opens the doors for Elven influence to spread.


----------



## Elthir

Bard the Bowman said:


> (...) What I do have is textual evidence explicitly stating that the Nandor did in fact dwell in Middle-earth...for a long time.




Which passage has little to do with the fact that the Nandor did not speak Sindarin when they settled in the Anduin Vale, nor how Sindarin eventually spread out of Beleriand.



> "Little is known of he wanderings of the Nandor, whom he [Lenwe] led away down Anduin: some, it is said, dwelt age-long in the woods of the Vale of the Great River, some came at last to its mouths and there dwelt by the Sea, and yet others passing by Ered Nimrais, the White Mountains, came north again and entered the wilderness of Eriador between Ered Luin and the far Mountains of Mist."
> 
> Now does this prove anything? Certainly not. Does it open doors? Yes. It opens the doors for Elven influence to spread.



Elven influence? If you mean this passage opens the door for the specific language of _Grey-elven_ _to spread Eastward_ then I will point out again that it merely describes _non-Sindarin speakers _migrating in various directions.


Noting again the passage I already cited in the thread: which at the least shows that Silvan Elvish was still being spoken in Mirkwood until Oropher arrived at some point in the early Second Age -- and even then, according to one scenario also already cited, the language itself, at least, was not adopted immediately by the more numerous Silvan speakers.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Look, they were all Teleri, and Esgaroth is not actually Sindarin. Therefore it is very possible that the name could have melded by other members of the Teleri, who were actually in Middle-earth at the time. Remember, Tolkien does not state matter-of-fact that Esgaroth is Sindarin. And the Nandorin language is similar to the Sindarin; more like a different dialect in fact.

Also there is this passage in the Silmarillion, "...and some of the Grey-elves still wandered far and wide without settle abode, and they sang as they went."

Also this after the Dagor Bragollach. "...and some fled the land and hid themselves in Ossiriand, or passing the mountains wandered homeless in the wild."

So, if you don't think the Nandor could have named Lake-town with a name in Sindar fashion, then there were other Sindar elves in Middle-earth at that time.


----------



## Elthir

Bard the Bowman said:


> Look, they were all Teleri, and Esgaroth is not actually Sindarin. (...) Remember, Tolkien does not state matter-of-fact that Esgaroth is Sindarin.



According to what the author himself published he leaves little choice, which is arguably why two of the most noted Tolkien scholars on the planet simply refer to this word as Sindarin in their companion to _The Lord of the Rings.

_


> Also there is this passage in the Silmarillion, "...and some of the Grey-elves still wandered far and wide without settle abode, and they sang as they went."



Incidentally I find no indication here, or in the fuller context, that Tolkien necessarily means outside of Beleriand; and my interpretation of this passage is that these Elves wandered within Beleriand. 



> Also this after the Dagor Bragollach. "...and some fled the land and hid themselves in Ossiriand, or passing the mountains wandered homeless in the wild."



But you want people to entertain the idea that these homeless, wandering Elves, also wandered out of Eriador and further eastwards, and _were so influential from a linguistic standpoint_ that they were the ultimate reason for Sindarin nomenclature as far East as Esgaroth -- instead of the scenario Tolkien describes.



> So, if you don't think the Nandor could have named Lake-town with a name in Sindar fashion, then there were other Sindar elves in Middle-earth at that time.




Bard, in both _Words, Phrases And Passages_ and _Unfinished Tales_ Tolkien refers to the Sindarization of these Silvan Elves as being due to the post-War of Wrath migration of Elves into Eriador, and ultimately into the Anduin Vale.

In _WPP_ Tolkien even ascribes the spread of Sindarin _into Eriador_ as due to the migration of Beleriandic Elves after the War with Morgoth and so on -- at the same time even noting that a Nandorin language may have survived east of the Misty Mountains in spite of this...

... however JRRT then has to admit to himself what he had already published, and already employed with respect to nomenclature in _The Lord of the Rings_, and so this is very arguably why he continues his musings about how this same movement (or movements of significant Elves, and significant enough numbers of Sindarin speakers) might have affected the Silvan languages and dialects east of the Misty Mountains.

At this point in (external) time, the Sindarization of Lorien appears to 'await' the destruction of Eregion even -- but the point is, even the Sindarization of Eriador is not due to some wandering and nameless Elves that fled Beleriand earlier, but the influence of eastward moving Beleriandic Elves after the end of the First Age. Tolkien even notes the role of the Sindarin speaking Dunedain: '[The Dunedain who entered Eriador at the end of the Second Age also used the Sindarin tongue for many purposes, which aided in the disappearance of other varieties of Elvish speech.]'


Tolkien knows how to explain the spread of a language, but I would go with the author here even _if_ he felt he had caught himself in a jam and had to indulge in some fancy footwork...

... but he did not get himself in trouble here, and in my opinion his history makes perfect sense as far as the general model is attested.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

You've brought up some excellent points, I will not deny it. But I am not sure how familiar you are with the languages of the Eldar. Nandor and Sindar? Sort of like Swiss German and German. Very possible that a term created by the Nandor could appear Sindarin. 



> Incidentally I find no indication here, or in the fuller context, that Tolkien necessarily means outside of Beleriand; and my interpretation of this passage is that these Elves wandered within Beleriand.



Incidentally I find no indication here that they didn't wander over the Ered Luin. 

Anyway, am I the author? Have I ever claimed to have all the answers? I only open doors of possibility, and it's not outside the scope of believability that either a wandering group of Sindar elves or homeless Sindar banded together and gave the name Esgaroth to a settlement of Men. 

One other possibility, a shot in the dark if I may (excuse the pun. Not actually a shot in the dark, a very strong point I believe), is the contact with the Dark Elves. Let me quote from the Silmarillion:

"It is said also that these Men had long had dealings with the Dark Elves east of the mountains, and from them had learned much of their speech; and since all the languages of the Quendi were of one origin, the language of Beor and his folk resembled the Elven-tongue in many words and devices."

So, there you have it. Similarities in the tongues of the Dark Elves who we know were dwelling in the east of Middle-earth. They easily could have referred to the Lake settlement as Esgaroth, and due to the similarities in tongue could be very readily referred to as Sindarin, or Sindarin in shape, as the Sindarin tongue was most common, and few indeed probably used the tongue of the Dark Elves.


----------



## Troll

Few used the language of the Dark Elves? Not true. We are given that the Tawarwaith spoke their Quenderin dialect until Thranduil slowly Sindarinized the kingdom over the course of the Second and potentially even Third Ages.

The languages of the Nandor and Sindar are divorced by much greater spans of time and space than German and Swiss. Sindarin is at least two linguistic steps removed from whatever the Tawarwaith spoke: Quenderin -> Eldarin -> Sindarin, not to mention the two mountain chains separating Mirkwood from Doriath.

If there weren't a difference, Tolkien would not have specified that Esgaroth was a *Sindarinized* name rather than an Elvishized name. Word of JRR trumps all speculation.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Okay sure. Good for me that more spoke the language of the dark elves, which was *similar *to Sindarin. Lots of the exact same words and devices. Very similar. It makes it more influential the more people spoke it, and more likely to have a lasting impact on, oh i don't know, a town even when their race has all but vanished.

Word of Tolkien trumps all? Absolutely. And he states that Esgaroth is NOT Sindarin but Sindarized in shape. So, hypothetically, it is possible that a group of elves already around at the time, speaking a very similar language to the Sindar, could have referred to a settlement as Esgaroth, and at first glance it would appear similar to Sindarin. That is well within the realm of possibility. 

I'll just post this again, in case you missed it the first time.

"It is said also that these Men had long had dealings with the Dark Elves east of the mountains, and from them had learned much of their speech; and since all the languages of the Quendi were of one origin, the language of Beor and his folk resembled the Elven-tongue in many words and devices."


----------



## Elthir

Bard the Bowman said:


> (...) But I am not sure how familiar you are with the languages of the Eldar. Nandor and Sindar? Sort of like Swiss German and German. Very possible that a term created by the Nandor could appear Sindarin.



If you are referring to the languages there the more correct Quenya forms are Nandorin and Sindarin (employing a shorter form of -inwa). Anyway I'll respond to this below.



> Incidentally I find no indication here that they didn't wander over the Ered Luin.



And my point was -- considering your claims above and that you only posted part of the citation here being referred to -- was to clarify that you had not posted two quotes that referred to any Sindar leaving Beleriand before the War of Wrath, but one -- along with one that only _might_ be interpreted in such a way. 




> Anyway, am I the author? Have I ever claimed to have all the answers? I only open doors of possibility, and it's not outside the scope of believability that either a wandering group of Sindar elves or homeless Sindar banded together and gave the name Esgaroth to a settlement of Men.



No one ever claimed you were the author or had all the answers, but the author actually described the reasons behind the spread of Grey-elven in the Second and Third Ages. And with respect to possibility: for example, is it possible that Gil-galad was so named because he was an avid astronomer? In a general sense it's 'possible', but it's not going to be all that compelling just by being possible -- but moreover, when Tolkien himself explains why Gil-galad is so named, then what was formerly viewed as at least possible is now trumped by the author's explanation.


In this matter I'm much more inclined to follow the general approach I glean from Tolkien's descriptions, as they suggest to me what the author finds plausible when faced with the nomenclature in _The Lord of the Rings._ Why do we see Sindarin names or nomenclature adapted to Sindarin, so far East in the Third Age? Migrations of Sindarin speakers, some of whom became rulers of Silvan Elves, in the Second Age and beyond.



> One other possibility, a shot in the dark if I may (excuse the pun. Not actually a shot in the dark, a very strong point I believe), is the contact with the Dark Elves. Let me quote from the Silmarillion:
> 
> "It is said also that these Men had long had dealings with the Dark Elves east of the mountains, and from them had learned much of their speech; and since all the languages of the Quendi were of one origin, the language of Beor and his folk resembled the Elven-tongue in many words and devices."
> 
> So, there you have it. Similarities in the tongues of the Dark Elves who we know were dwelling in the east of Middle-earth. They easily could have referred to the Lake settlement as Esgaroth, and due to the similarities in tongue could be very readily referred to as Sindarin, or Sindarin in shape, as the Sindarin tongue was most common, and few indeed probably used the tongue of the Dark Elves.




All the Elvish languages are related in some measure of course, but according to _The Silvan Elves And Their Speech_: '... and especially the Sindar who did not pass over the sea but migrated eastward [i.e. at the beginning of the Second Age]. Under the leadership of these they became again an ordered folk and increased in wisdom. Thranduil father of Legolas of the Nine Walkers was Sindarin, and that tongue was used in his house, though not by all his folk.' 

Another late note (and note the conception, at least here, that I highlight): 'Although the dialects of the Silvan Elves, when they again met their long separated kindred, had so far diverged from Sindarin as to be hardly intelligible, little study was needed to reveal their kinship as Eldarin tongues.'

In _Words, Phrases and Passages_ we have: 'The speech of the Elves of Lorien was evidently still practically the same as that of the Northern branch of the Wood-Elves, since 'Legolas... answered in the same tongue' Nothing of their speech, however, is known except this word yrch: their personal names and place names (in Lorien) are Sindarin.' [new paragraph] 'This is explained by the fact that when Beleriand was ruined, and most of it destroyed in the last war ending in the overthrow of Angband, many of the Noldor and Sindar went Eastwards into Eriador and beyond.' '(...) and even when the ordinary speech of these groups was kept up their nomenclature became largely Sindarin.'

Another note from WPP: '(...) In Eriador such Elves as remained, or were gathered under the protection of Elrond, were either Nandor, or else Sindar and Noldor fugitives from the destruction of Beleriand at the end of the first Age (...)'. 

Tolkien will then go on to explain the spread of Sindarin _in Eriador first_, then discuss the impact further east, as I already described above. In another section of WPP Tolkien notes that Sindarin was brought into Lorien by Galadriel and Celeborn and their followers.


This is all under the same general scenario regarding the spread of Sindarin (even if Tolkien apparently forgets, for instance, that he had already _published_ that the speech of these Silvan Elves is not considered 'Eldarin' technically).


It's not homeless, wandering Sindar, and not non-Sindarin speakers naming Esgaroth, but Tolkien is rather concerned with the impact of Sindarin after the destruction of Beleriand, which prompted notable Sindarin speakers moving Eastward. Is what you describe in your two latest scenarios any more or less possible, or any more or less plausible, that Gil-galad being named because of his love of the stars and starlight? 

So your argument is that it's possible that Sindarin Esgaroth was named by non-Sindarin speakers in the First Age? in conjunction with other possibilities -- like Tolkien revising 'practically forever' to 1,000 years in order to have Thorin refer to dragons other than Smaug -- all ultimately in order to allow the possibility that Smaug was around in the First Age?

For myself I don't find the idea of Smaug perhaps surviving the War of Wrath very compelling here, especially collectively considering all the matters raised so far in the thread.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Well I guess Galin we will have to agree to disagree. If you reject the idea wandering (whether fleeing or no) Grey-elves didn't label the settlement, I find it very plausible that the linguistically similar Dark Elves in the east could have referred to the town as Esgaroth, therefore causing the name to appear Sindarin or something like that. This, along with my other points;

- Winged Uruloki - great dragons - only revealed in War of Wrath
- A few survivors
- Smaug is the greatest dragon of the age - and massive
- Glaurung's immortality would have been passed down
- Smaug felled the warriors of old...i.e. Noldor and Vanyar who had seen the light of Valinor. Their like has not been seen again. Certainly not warriors of Dale. 

give me cause to believe that Smaug was, or at least could have been, in the War of Wrath.

This is the reason I want new, open minded sorts to join in. All that's happening is you guys are becoming entrenched in your own view. I have clearly refuted several arguments of yours, but you ignore it and refuse to acknowledge the logic. Your first step should be to acknowledge the validity of my points, instead of trying to sidestep them and bring up new ones.


----------



## Troll

> Your first step should be to acknowledge the validity of my points, instead of trying to sidestep them and bring up new ones.


Where did you learn to have conversations? North Korea? I am not here to be your echo chamber or your yes man. I am a human being with my own rational faculties and I am not bound to serve your pleasure or your ego.

My first steps have been to examine the validity of each of your points and cite evidence to confirm or disconfirm them. Overwhelmingly the other TTF members and I have disconfirmed them, and we are under no obligation to acknowledge validity where we find none. We have cited evidence to counter each one of the points you listed and introduced new points of our own; in return, you have met our arguments with handwaves, dismissals, and quick changes of the subject at hand. To summarize:



> - Smaug is the greatest dragon of the age - and massive


Red herring; irrelevant to the question of whether Smaug is a veteran of that battle.



> - Winged Uruloki - great dragons - only revealed in War of Wrath


Red herring; irrelevant to the question of whether Smaug is a veteran of that battle.



> - A few survivors


Two survivors, one male one female. If Smaug was one of those survivors he would be the father of all surviving winged dragons. There is no textual indication to suggest this is the case.



> the linguistically similar Dark Elves in the east could have referred to the town as Esgaroth


Galin has provided extensive documentation on the fact that Nandorin and Sindarin were _mutually unintelligible_ and had diverged greatly through the sunderings. Furthermore, Tolkien gives us explicitly that Esgaroth was a "Sindarinized" name, not a "Nandorinized name that sounds like Sindarin." Galin further documented that Sindar did not spread east to a socially-tractable extent until after the wreck of Beleriand. Word of God supports all of this directly without the need for logical extrapolation.

Therefore, when it is given by out-of-character narration that the settlement had been called Esgaroth when Smaug was a young dragon (i.e. not yet at sexual maturity), it is necessarily the case that Smaug was young, at the earliest, in the early days of the Second Age when Amdir and Oropher had founded their kingdoms after the exodus from Beleriand following the War of Wrath. This is incompatible with the notion that he was the father of dragons, which is required for your position to be possible.



> - Glaurung's immortality would have been passed down


Tolkien, through Thorin, has established that at least some of Glaurung's spawn had lives limited to 1000 years, negating the concept that the spawn of Morgoth's creatures necessarily inherited their forebers' supposed immortality. Furthermore, the non-immortality of Orcs, who had a similar genesis, provides a counterexample of descendants of embodied Maiar that did not inherit any supposed parental immortality.

Given that Tolkien specifically included the 1000-year lifespan of dragons in a story in which only one dragon features, I find it unlikely that he would have bothered to include that detail to deliberately mislead the reader.



> - Smaug felled the warriors of old...i.e. Noldor and Vanyar who had seen the light of Valinor. Their like has not been seen again. Certainly not warriors of Dale.


That is an assumption on your part based on your low opinion of the men of Dale. Girion could well have been referred to here as a "warrior of old." And indeed, Bard his descendant must have been a mightier warrior yet than Girion as he was capable of slaying Smaug, and we know Aragorn was a mighty warrior as well, likely on the same level of heroism as Elendil himself (who also postdates the War of Wrath).

The examples of the late-Third Age heroes demonstrate that Smaug's _in-character_ musings on his former foes were factually inaccurate, and that Smaug was necessarily drawing on experiences from his own past battles rather than the history or current events of the world at large.

The dragon's claims regarding the "warriors of old" and the seeing of their like are known to be inaccurate and a shaky basis for any leaps of interpretation beyond our confirmed knowledge of his history.



> we will have to agree to disagree.



I agree to disagree that there is any argument anyone could ever present to convince you that you are mistaken in any way, on any subject, ever.



> All that's happening is you guys are becoming entrenched in your own view. I have clearly refuted several arguments of yours, but you ignore it and refuse to acknowledge the logic.


 
A helpful infographic:


----------



## Bard the Bowman

You're a broken record Troll. And I find myself explaining my points for the umpteenth time. 

As to my first point, the great Smaug, it's just there to clarify that he fits the criteria. Brutally simple but with you guys I am forced to be. 

Next point, exact same thing.

Survivors point. Merely there to point out there were survivors. Why do I need to explain all this? Can't you figure it out on your own?

Languages point? Seriously? I posted the quote TWICE and still you ignore it.

_"It is said also that these Men had long had dealings with the Dark Elves east of the mountains, and from them had learned much of their speech; and since all the languages of the Quendi were of one origin, the language of Beor and his folk resembled the Elven-tongue in many words and devices."_

_So, there you have it. Similarities in the tongues of the Dark Elves who we know were dwelling in the east of Middle-earth. They easily could have referred to the Lake settlement as Esgaroth, and due to the similarities in tongue could be very readily referred to as Sindarin, or Sindarin in shape, as the Sindarin tongue was most common, and few indeed probably used the tongue of the Dark Elves._


Immortality point. I'm sure plenty of dragons lived only to 1000 years. But what Thorin says is not a rule. Please understand that. At least you are now of the belief that Glaurung's offspring could have been immortal. That's a step I guess. But look at Thorin's experience. Is he an expert on this subject? Certainly not. Up till now he has only been dealing with lesser dragons, if any. 

Warriors of old point. Certainly Elendil might be viewed as a warrior of old. But then again his like has been seen in the world. The elves who had ACTUALLY been to Valinor (because apparently seeing the light of Valinor does wonders) were all but gone from Middle-earth. It fits the statement. Is it irrevocable proof? Of course not! Does it hurt my argument? No, rather enhance it. Granted he also could have fought in the Last Alliance, as the High Elves of Valinor were also there. 

I've acknowledged some of your good points (well not yours personally), and I am open to new thoughts. I don't appreciate it when my points are ignored, and I feel like all I'm doing now is repeating what I said a few posts ago...to the same people.


----------



## Bucky

Actually, I thought Troll did an excellent job on this thread, which has become, to quote Bilbo Baggins, "like butter spread over too much bread"..


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Wow Bucky I never thought you would disagree with me :*mad:. Just kidding, your bias always shines through. And you have some serious issues if you think Troll has done an excellent job. The only thing he has done excellently is to act out his name...Troll. And if the thread is bothersome to you, then just stay out of it and stop bringing others down with your poor attitude. Misery loves company they say, so please leave.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

off topic, decided to remove


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Erestor, first of all, because I have no reason to believe otherwise, am I right in assuming you would be open to me showing you instances where he deliberately posted to garner a reaction from me? 

I can show these clearly, and would be more than happy to. You made an misinformed judgement on the matter, as you clearly did not read earlier in this thread. But i will show you, if you will allow me.

No other members complained because they were all against me as well.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Well if that appears to be the case to you markoffc, why don't you leave the thread? If it is finished, why do you feel the need to post on it?


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

Let's get back on topic, Was Smaug in the War of Wrath or not? If we don't like what someone else is posting, please just ignore, if you feel you've been attacked or anything there is a report/flag button for your convenience.


----------



## Brand of Dale

Hello I\'m new here. Interesting topic. Certainly there is no concrete evidence stating Smaug was in the War of Wrath, but there doesn\'t seem to be any directly refuting the idea. I think the \"warriors of old\" point is a good one. Although it might not have been intended as the Elves of Valinor at the start (just like Turgon wasn\'t Elrond\'s great grandfather), it certainly fits in nicely with a War of Wrath Smaug. So could he have? Sure.


----------



## Troll

Glad to see a fresh face. I'd like to hear more of your reasons why you think the evidence against Smaug being a creature from the First Age isn't persuasive. Do you think Smaug was the father of all (post-YT) dragons?

Something seems familiar about you... but I can't put my finger on it. :*confused:


----------



## Brand of Dale

I feel like we\'ve met before too. Maybe we\'ve seen each other in real life. Smaug the father? Well, I guess if he was a soldier in the War of Wrath he\'d have to be. I\'m not too familiar on Tolkien\'s rules of dragon breeding, especially when they came from a Maia dragon, and perhaps a pregnant female dragon escaped too. There\'s some very good evidence from both sides. I wish there was a poll here. Anyway I haven\'t seen many of the arguments I\'m sure, as there are tons of pages here, but I\'ve seen the \"warriors of old\" theory, which could be Last Alliance warriors or War of Wrath. If one of those two, it would most likely be War of Wrath, because an appearance at the Last Alliance by a great dragon would surely not go undocumented, whereas in the War of Wrath Smaug would have been overshadowed by Ancalagon and perhaps other greater worms. As far as other arguments go, I saw mainly the language one here towards the end, with Esgaroth named in Smaug\'s \"young days\", or earlier. Now we have no concrete piece of evidence who named the lake-settlement Esgaroth. The way I see it there are two main options. 1. Sindar migrating from the Destruction of Beleriand settling in Mirkwood, eventually referring to the town as Esgaroth, giving it the Sindar-like appearance. Or 2. Dark-elves in Middle-earth, with a language similar to the Sindarin language, referred to the place as Esgaroth, also resulting in a Sindarized form. These are the arguments I\'ve concluded. Now, the first one is clearly possible, obviously. The second one is not entirely unbelievable. Tolkien himself states that the languages of the elves out east was similar to the Sindar, so it is possible. I would say that this doesn\'t necessarily rule out Smaug\'s possible involvement in the Great Battle. Does anyone know the sizes of the dragons? Glaurung or Ancalagon? I think that would be helpful. I can\'t find the sizes anywhere.


----------



## Bucky

I smell a Bard\-\size \rat...

All are welcome if they wish to be civil however. ;*)

Maybe Bard went to the #1 Tolkien site on the web...

I'll give him 2 posts before they ban him with their intolerance of anything but 'tolerance'. :*rolleyes:


----------



## Brand of Dale

. Anyway, let us just examine the points i just listed, and I think if we dissect them we will find the answer we seek. One point at a time; it becomes too convoluted if we argue several points at once. Sorry about the slashes, I do not know how to get rid of them. I can\'t have any line spaces either.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

Brand of Dale said:


> I feel like we\'ve met before too. Maybe we\'ve seen each other in real life. Smaug the father? Well, I guess if he was a soldier in the War of Wrath he\'d have to be. I\'m not too familiar on Tolkien\'s rules of dragon breeding, especially when they came from a Maia dragon, and perhaps a *pregnant female dragon escaped too*. There\'s some very good evidence from both sides. I wish there was a poll here. Anyway I haven\'t seen many of the arguments I\'m sure, as there are tons of pages here, but I\'ve seen the \"warriors of old\" theory, which could be Last Alliance warriors or War of Wrath. If one of those two, it would most likely be War of Wrath, because an appearance at the Last Alliance by a great dragon would surely not go undocumented, whereas in the War of Wrath Smaug would have been overshadowed by Ancalagon and perhaps other greater worms. As far as other arguments go, I saw mainly the language one here towards the end, with Esgaroth named in Smaug\'s \"young days\", or earlier. Now we have no concrete piece of evidence who named the lake-settlement Esgaroth. The way I see it there are two main options. 1. Sindar migrating from the Destruction of Beleriand settling in Mirkwood, eventually referring to the town as Esgaroth, giving it the Sindar-like appearance. Or 2. Dark-elves in Middle-earth, with a language similar to the Sindarin language, referred to the place as Esgaroth, also resulting in a Sindarized form. These are the arguments I\'ve concluded. Now, the first one is clearly possible, obviously. The second one is not entirely unbelievable. Tolkien himself states that the languages of the elves out east was similar to the Sindar, so it is possible. I would say that this doesn\'t necessarily rule out Smaug\'s possible involvement in the Great Battle. Does anyone know the sizes of the dragons? Glaurung or Ancalagon? I think that would be helpful. I can\'t find the sizes anywhere.



I don't want to go into detail and I'm pretty sure Tolkien never did, but I'm assuming that reproduction in the Middle Earth world worked the same as in the real word. Being that, I'd assume that a dragon would lay eggs, being a lizard, not be pregnant in the sense you mean.


----------



## Bucky

Erestor Arcamen said:


> I don't want to go into detail and I'm pretty sure Tolkien never did, but I'm assuming that reproduction in the Middle Earth world worked the same as in the real word. Being that, I'd assume that a dragon would lay eggs, being a lizard, not be pregnant in the sense you mean.



*Yes, agreed. My thought, seeing that there were two dragons that escaped The War of Wrath (I WILL find that quote) that they, like Durin's Bane, fled far away: To the Withered Heath, which was still a rather cold place, much like the climate that they enjoyed in the area around Thangorodrim & the Iron Mountains....

The two dragons lived out their long, but not immortal lives & laid some eggs, which, for whatever reasons, went into 'hibernation', not hatching until the third millennium of the Third Age, when they began hatching & 'dragons reappeared' around 2570 according to 'The Tale of Years'.

This, at least to me, seems like the most logical scenario considering the information we have available to us.


okay, here it is:

'The tale of Years', hoME, Volume 11; 'The War of the Jewels', page 346:

550-597(B*) 'Ancalagon is cast down by Earendil and all save two of the Dragons are destroyed.'

* In the remaining entries some of the dates were altered but very few changes were made to the content of 'A' (the main text, which does not concern Dragons, but The War of Wrath) need not therefore be repeated.

*


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Well of course you all are free to formulate your own opinions on this matter, but I think we can all agree that it is possible, if not probable, that Smaug was in his early days a soldier of Morgoth.


----------



## Prince of Cats

Bard the Bowman said:


> but I think we can all agree that it is possible, if not probable, that Smaug was in his early days a soldier of Morgoth.



I think most people, myself included, have made clear that it's possible, if not probable, that we do _not_ agree with you on this one. Why do you continue to say we agree with you after only providing contradictory ideas and textual evidence, and then go on accusing us of not listening? It's a fun idea, putting Smaug at the War of Wrath, but it requires assuming Tolkien went back and altered the text to add in that dragons-living-1000 years remark to purposely mislead readers ... I can only imagine you're having trying to have a bit of fun with the discussion by this point


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Actually no Prince of Cats. You keep bringing up the 1000 years point. Obviously it was meant to be Thorin's own opinion because Glaurung's immortality shatters that. But really I'm not actually directing my statements towards a select group (Yourself, Gandalf White, Bucky, Troll, markoffc), because you four have shown no interest in discussing, only spewing your own ideas out and ignoring points. The others in this discussion, though they may perhaps disagree with me, have remained civil. It is to them and also new people I am speaking to.


----------



## Elthir

Bard the Bowman said:


> Actually no Prince of Cats. You keep bringing up the 1000 years point. Obviously it was meant to be Thorin's own opinion because Glaurung's immortality shatters that.




It has not been proven that Glaurung is immortal in any case, nor that he is a Maia contained in worm form.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

"Spoke by the evil spirit that was in him". Sorry if I was presumptuous, but I thought earlier we had agreed Glaurung was a Maia, and that you were arguing that Smaug would under no circumstances be able to inherit that characteristic. You'll forgive me, but perhaps this matter should be brought up again if it is again in dispute.


----------



## Elthir

Bard the Bowman said:


> "Spoke by the evil spirit that was in him". Sorry if I was presumptuous, but I thought earlier we had agreed Glaurung was a Maia, and that you were arguing that Smaug would under no circumstances be able to inherit that characteristic.




I don't remember agreeing that Glaurung was a Maia. That's but one option in my opinion. Nor do I remember arguing the matter of inheritance you refer to here. Other people might have. I was involved in the 'Esgaroth is Sindarin' matter, for example; but I'm not sure I posted one way or the other about this question concerning Glaurung, back when it was being discussed.


----------



## Troll

I think it's hilarious that the only posters in this thread who are not part of that "select group" of idea-spewers are his own dupe accounts. :*p


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Troll you are either lying, blind, or mad. Did you see who just posted last? Galin. He wasn't in the group. Erestor isn't either. There are more, but I guess YOU can't see the wood through the trees.

Are you playing dumb or is this actually a representation of your intellectual level? (Neither answer puts you in a good light).


----------



## Troll

I see being banned has done nothing to improve your mood. Tell me, what did you spend your time doing after the admins deleted your dupes?


----------



## Bucky

Don't feed the, uh,.....

Bards.


----------



## Bucky

Seriously...

Typical discussion on this thread:

Every poster but Sybil (Bard's seventeen multiple personalities): "Here is some more textual evidence that Smaug could not have possibly been alive & in the War of Wrath for you..."

Sybil: "You are a bunch of meanies picking on me who won't listen to my non-proof, so I think i'll whine about it some more!"


----------



## Bard the Bowman

First to answer Troll, although I can see it's pointless, but whatever, I'll give it a try. What did I do with my time? Well I went onto another Tolkien forum and posted the Tale of Nardor, and a thread similar to this one. As to being banned not improving my mood, I would like to modify that statement. Being banned has not changed my viewpoint. I still dislike it when closed-minded and insulting individuals harass me. 

Bucky, as I've said so many other times, each point you guys have brought up has been refuted by me. But like I said so many other times, you're closed-minded.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

All right people, let's wipe the slate clean and start afresh. Let's hear some new people present their opinions. I am all for having a rational discussion. So for viewers just entering the thread, let me just briefly outline my points that make the case Smaug could have been in the War of Wrath.




Smaug is a Winged Fire-breathing dragon, one of the terrors created by Morgoth to defeat the Valar. The Silmarillion states nearly all the dragons were destroyed in the Last Battle. Nearly, but not all.
Smaug said he felled the warriors of old, and their like has not been seen in the world again. Granted he could be referring to Girion and just be an idiot, but I think not. What fits perfectly is the elves of Valinor, in the War of Wrath; or the Edain, but most likely the elves. Finarfin's Noldor and/or the Vanyar. Certainly the Vanyar have not been seen again, and the Noldor who have seen Valinor? Very few left. Galadriel, Glorfindel, perhaps Gildor, but very few at the most, and secretive. Suffice to say Smaug would be mostly believed when he said their like is not in the world today.
As to the age factor, certainly a great dragon like Smaug would be immortal. We seem to all agree that the first brood of dragons, like Glaurung, was inhabited by Maiar spirits. If they reproduced, then their offspring, like them, would be immortal. Not Maiar spirits though. Look at Luthien; she came from an elf and a Maia, and was immortal.
As far as Thorin's revised comment, that is no proof. Thorin is just explaining to Bilbo to the best of his knowledge. And since Glaurung we know for sure is immortal, doesn't that render his comment faulty? Definitely so. It's not a rule.


Please, I would be delighted to hear your views and discuss them.


----------



## Elthir

> We seem to all agree that the first brood of dragons, like Glaurung, was inhabited by Maiar spirits.



Actually we don't all agree, and considering that I just posted that I didn't agree Glaurung was a Maia (not necessarily), why do you then post this?



> As far as Thorin's revised comment, that is no proof. Thorin is just explaining to Bilbo to the best of his knowledge. And since Glaurung we know for sure is immortal, doesn't that render his comment faulty? Definitely so. It's not a rule.



Again we don't know this for sure. Moreover, even _if_ true it does not necessarily render Thorin's comment faulty from an external viewpoint... not 'definitely' anyway especially since Thorin's words _might_ represent Tolkien's last notion about the lifespan of dragons. Considering that the Silmarillion wasn't published in 1960, JRRT was in no way bound to feel restrained by Glaurung being immortal, _even if_ he had written this...

... which he hadn't in the 1950s or later (as far as I'm aware, at the moment).


----------



## Bard the Bowman

Sorry about that Galin I was just copying and pasting an older post so I didn't have to keep retyping everything, and I didn't proofread it. I wasn't trying to provoke.

Well in any case, would you agree that the lifespan of dragons is arbitrary? This then would eliminate Thorin's statement applying to _all _dragons. Glaurung, even if we take the stance that he isn't immortal, would have a lifespan much longer than 2000 years. Thorin's statement should not be an absolute.

What really makes me suspicious (apart from the "warriors of old" quote) is Smaug's size and dragon type. As previously stated Smaug is a great dragon, and no others are mentioned to the best of my knowledge, although if there is any mention of other great dragons after the First Age I would be delighted to be made aware of them. He is gigantic, just the sort of thing that could drive back the Valar, if given the element of surprise. Now again, I am not saying this is irrefutable proof, I'm just saying it lends weight to my theory.


----------



## Bucky

The records stuck The records stuck The records stuck The records stuck The records stuck The records stuck


----------



## Bard the Bowman

You forgot an apostrophe Bucky. And why exactly are you still posting? You obviously have nothing constructive to say, so don't say anything. I will not hold a discussion with any of you five (Yourself, Troll, Gandalf White, markoffc, Prince of Cats). I don't like your bias and I will not entertain it.


----------



## Bard the Bowman

So who would agree that the length of dragon's lives is arbitrary?


----------



## Only Mountain

Well here are some interesting points:



Smaug is a Winged Fire-breathing dragon, one of the terrors created by Morgoth to defeat the Valar. The Silmarillion states nearly all the dragons were destroyed in the Last Battle. Nearly, but not all.
Smaug said he felled the warriors of old, and their like has not been seen in the world again. Granted he could be referring to Girion and just be an idiot, but I think not. What fits perfectly is the elves of Valinor, in the War of Wrath; or the Edain, but most likely the elves. Finarfin's Noldor and/or the Vanyar. Certainly the Vanyar have not been seen again, and the Noldor who have seen Valinor? Very few left. Galadriel, Glorfindel, perhaps Gildor, but very few at the most, and secretive. Suffice to say Smaug would be mostly believed when he said their like is not in the world today.
As to the age factor, certainly a great dragon like Smaug would be immortal. We seem to all agree that the first brood of dragons, like Glaurung, was inhabited by Maiar spirits. If they reproduced, then their offspring, like them, would be immortal. Not Maiar spirits though. Look at Luthien; she came from an elf and a Maia, and was immortal.
As far as Thorin's revised comment, that is no proof. Thorin is just explaining to Bilbo to the best of his knowledge. And since Glaurung we know for sure is immortal, doesn't that render his comment faulty? Definitely so. It's not a rule.


----------



## Troll

Bard, this is really starting to get pathetic. :*rolleyes:


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

I was wondering where my Bowman friend had went...:*p...looks like he has a lot of usernames in his quiver


----------



## Only Mountain

Feel free not to post Troll if it pains you so much. I'm just trying to have a rational discussion.


----------



## Troll

Oh, it doesn't pain me in the slightest. In fact, watching you come back over and over again just to get knocked down the same way every time fills me with the kind of glee that I am certain fuels the fires that wait for me in Hell.

Welcome back buddy. I missed you. :*D


----------



## HLGStrider

I think it's the fifth circle of Hell that Dante reserved for those who engage in vindictive internet rivalries. . .


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

5th circle:

View attachment 5163

If you're banned one time, doesn't that kind of send a hint?


----------



## Only Mountain

I have no idea what you guys are talking about. I just joined up recently. But what do you think about the possibilities of Smaug being in the War of Wrath


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

Well there are 5 pages before this one with our thoughts on it if you read back, you'll see...

*cough* *cough*


----------



## Only Mountain

I read them over, but it seemed you ignored Bard's excellent points as well, so I thought we'd start afresh. Clean slate, so to speak.


----------



## Only Mountain

Well here are some interesting points:



Smaug is a Winged Fire-breathing dragon, one of the terrors created by Morgoth to defeat the Valar. The Silmarillion states nearly all the dragons were destroyed in the Last Battle. Nearly, but not all.
Smaug said he felled the warriors of old, and their like has not been seen in the world again. Granted he could be referring to Girion and just be an idiot, but I think not. What fits perfectly is the elves of Valinor, in the War of Wrath; or the Edain, but most likely the elves. Finarfin's Noldor and/or the Vanyar. Certainly the Vanyar have not been seen again, and the Noldor who have seen Valinor? Very few left. Galadriel, Glorfindel, perhaps Gildor, but very few at the most, and secretive. Suffice to say Smaug would be mostly believed when he said their like is not in the world today.
As to the age factor, certainly a great dragon like Smaug would be immortal. We seem to all agree that the first brood of dragons, like Glaurung, was inhabited by Maiar spirits. If they reproduced, then their offspring, like them, would be immortal. Not Maiar spirits though. Look at Luthien; she came from an elf and a Maia, and was immortal.
As far as Thorin's revised comment, that is no proof. Thorin is just explaining to Bilbo to the best of his knowledge. And since Glaurung we know for sure is immortal, doesn't that render his comment faulty? Definitely so. It's not a rule.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

Only Mountain said:


> I read them over, but it seemed you ignored Bard's excellent points as well, so I thought we'd start afresh. Clean slate, so to speak.



So basically copy and paste all the 'excellent points' you er I mean Bard made and start afresh with them all over?


----------



## Bucky

Don't feed the trolls.


----------



## yooper

Lol. I just read this entire thread (can't stop watching a train wreck...) and registered myself on this forum specifically to thank Bard the Bowman for providing me with at least 90 minutes of A1-prime entertaining reading. Obviously, that persona is banned but I find it unlikely that such an, err how shall I say it, _persistent_ character isn't viewing this stuff as a guest or with another account. 

Thanks, Bard!

Also good sir, you asked many times in this thread for new people to join in and give their opinion about Smaug. Well, I am here to do just that. Here goes! My opinion is that the many participants of this thread have given very good evidence for why Smaug was not around during the FA. I am further of the opinion that you ignored and derided every single person who did not agree with you, which was everybody. Then you blamed everyone else of treating you the way you were actually treating them. Furthermore you abandoned all sanity by ignoring _Tolkein himself_ and what he said, in canon, about the lifespan of dragons. If you weren't already banned, my second action as a member of this forum (the first being to write this post) would be to figure out how to block you. Cheers!


----------



## Starbrow

Bard did keep things "lively" around here.


----------



## OfRhosgobel

I agree completely, and it's not something I thought of. Smaug would logically be in the War of Wrath, for all the reasons you stated and one more. He is the greatest dragon of his age, we should assume then that he has been growing for a very long time. It would make sense that this means since the First Age of Sun and Moon. Good topic!

I agree with everything you said, but I don't agree that the dragons were inhabited by Maiar. Nowhere does it say that? The Balrogs were Maiar, Thuringwethil and Draugluin, as well as Ungoliant, but not the dragons.

Smaug is a Winged Fire-breathing dragon, one of the terrors created by Morgoth to defeat the Valar. The Silmarillion states nearly all the dragons were destroyed in the Last Battle. Nearly, but not all.
Smaug said he felled the warriors of old, and their like has not been seen in the world again. Granted he could be referring to Girion and just be an idiot, but I think not. What fits perfectly is the elves of Valinor, in the War of Wrath; or the Edain, but most likely the elves. Finarfin's Noldor and/or the Vanyar. Certainly the Vanyar have not been seen again, and the Noldor who have seen Valinor? Very few left. Galadriel, Glorfindel, perhaps Gildor, but very few at the most, and secretive. Suffice to say Smaug would be mostly believed when he said their like is not in the world today.
As to the age factor, certainly a great dragon like Smaug would be immortal. We seem to all agree that the first brood of dragons, like Glaurung, was inhabited by Maiar spirits. If they reproduced, then their offspring, like them, would be immortal. Not Maiar spirits though. Look at Luthien; she came from an elf and a Maia, and was immortal.
As far as Thorin's revised comment, that is no proof. Thorin is just explaining to Bilbo to the best of his knowledge. And since Glaurung we know for sure is immortal, doesn't that render his comment faulty? Definitely so. It's not a rule.[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding me? You have to know the full extent of the lands of Arda before you say 'where was Smaug for 5000 years?'. Their are many lands he could have been to and terrorized in that time. None of which we know the histories of. Remember all of this lore is only what was recorded in the west of middle-earth. No written history ever came out of the east or south. In the Second and Third Ages of Sun and Moon their were places like the Burnt Lands of the Sun(Sunlands) or Far Harad, or the Dark Lands. Smaug could have been anywhere. Tolkien opened up an incredible and expansive world for our minds to play in, don't be so negative about speculation(especially when it makes a lot of sense, lol).


----------



## HLGStrider

Did someone delete posts in this conversation? I usually can see that sort of thing (with my magic moderator powers) and I'm not here. OfRhos, maybe for clarity you should mention who you are addressing (I'm assuming these are previous posts from the thread that you are referencing but this thread has been inactive for awhile). Welcome to the forum.


----------



## Gandalf White

OfRhosgobel said:


> I agree with everything you said, but I don't agree that the dragons were inhabited by Maiar. Nowhere does it say that? The Balrogs were Maiar, Thuringwethil and Draugluin, as well as Ungoliant, but not the dragons.
> 
> Smaug is a Winged Fire-breathing dragon, one of the terrors created by Morgoth to defeat the Valar. The Silmarillion states nearly all the dragons were destroyed in the Last Battle. Nearly, but not all.
> Smaug said he felled the warriors of old, and their like has not been seen in the world again. Granted he could be referring to Girion and just be an idiot, but I think not. What fits perfectly is the elves of Valinor, in the War of Wrath; or the Edain, but most likely the elves. Finarfin's Noldor and/or the Vanyar. Certainly the Vanyar have not been seen again, and the Noldor who have seen Valinor? Very few left. Galadriel, Glorfindel, perhaps Gildor, but very few at the most, and secretive. Suffice to say Smaug would be mostly believed when he said their like is not in the world today.
> As to the age factor, certainly a great dragon like Smaug would be immortal. We seem to all agree that the first brood of dragons, like Glaurung, was inhabited by Maiar spirits. If they reproduced, then their offspring, like them, would be immortal. Not Maiar spirits though. Look at Luthien; she came from an elf and a Maia, and was immortal.
> As far as Thorin's revised comment, that is no proof. Thorin is just explaining to Bilbo to the best of his knowledge. And since Glaurung we know for sure is immortal, doesn't that render his comment faulty? Definitely so. It's not a rule.



You're getting lazy there, Bard, copying and pasting the same paragraphs over and over. Not only have you put it on this page twice, I think you used the exact same one (with your original name :*p) back around page 5 or 6. 



> We seem to all agree that the first brood of dragons, like Glaurung, was inhabited by Maiar spirits. If they reproduced, then their offspring, like them, would be immortal. Not Maiar spirits though. Look at Luthien; she came from an elf and a Maia, and was immortal.


 Only if by "we" you mean "my multiple personalities and I." 

What am I missing about this point, though? Aren't both elves and Maiar immortal? How is an immortal elf proof of anything?

As to the rest, it has all been soundly refuted. Your arguments rest on (1) Smaug's immortality, which is refuted by Tolkien, through the mouth of Thorin; and (2) the statements of Smaug, an evil creature, naturally deceitful, and with the gift of a dragon's tongue, under which you appear to have fallen spell. 

Cheers.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

Gandalf the White, in his wisdom, said it for me. Though we don't know 100% that it's Bard in disguise, we should wait and see how things play out...though he was/is the only one interested in pushing on with this theory/story, so let's let bygones be bygones and see what happens...Eru will watch over our forum and keep us safe (with help from his lovely mod HLGStrider)


----------



## Starbrow

I didn't know that any of the dragons were immortal. Where does it talk about that?


----------



## Elthir

> I didn't know that any of the dragons were immortal. Where does it talk about that?



The Nardorian chronicles?

Nah. Never mind ;*)


----------



## OfRhosgobel

HLGStrider said:


> Did someone delete posts in this conversation? I usually can see that sort of thing (with my magic moderator powers) and I'm not here. OfRhos, maybe for clarity you should mention who you are addressing (I'm assuming these are previous posts from the thread that you are referencing but this thread has been inactive for awhile). Welcome to the forum.



Thx for the welcome! These were my first posts, and I didn't realize how it worked. I thought that a copy of the post I was replying to would appear. So I deleted the text of the original post in my replies. I stopped doing that now


----------



## Miguel

A little off- here but this has always reminded me of Glaurung. Vermithrax is terrifying.


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Hey I saw this earlier, and thought to interject. Its a fun theory here, the thought of Smaug fighting in the War of Wrath. I suppose there's no definite reason he couldn't have fought in the great battle, and since this is fantasy, it is I think preferable to give weight to this theory. It's also even more likely given his status and size and power...such a dragon would have been a fearsome participant. Also, the offspring of the dragons that escaped would be diminished due to the effect of Middle-earth on creatures, without Morgoth's power. Smaug does not fit the description of a dragon diminished in power


----------



## Miguel

He was probably in the fleet that came with thunder and lighting which makes me wonder if Morgoth was also using weather on Valinor's forces.


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Miguel said:


> He was probably in the fleet that came with thunder and lighting which makes me wonder if Morgoth was also using weather on Valinor's forces.



This brings up an obvious question. How did the Valar get beaten back by the winged dragons. Granted, Ancalagon and Smaug are incredibly powerful, but Earendil and especially Bard killed them. I get that the Valar might be temporarily surprised and pushed back, but to have mere men become the saviours doesn't add up. Did Earendil have some sort of protection with the Silmaril?


----------



## Elthir

Spirit of Fire said:


> This brings up an obvious question. How did the Valar get beaten back by the winged dragons.




If I recall correctly, I don't think it's a given that the Valar were at the War of Wrath.


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Elthir said:


> If I recall correctly, I don't think it's a given that the Valar were at the War of Wrath.



Ah true. What then was the reason for the ease at which the Valinor host destroyed the Balrogs and Morgoth's armies? The Maiar (how many? Thousands?), particularly Eonwe? It just seems too easy for the Vanyar (fewest in number of the Elves), a couple of Noldor and Edain, and some Maiar to brush aside the Balrogs, dragons, trolls, and millions of orcs there not to mention the Winged Uruloki.


----------



## Olorgando

From near the end of the the last chapter, no. 24, of the Quenta Silmarillion part of The Sil:
"Of the march of the host of the *Valar *to the north of Middle-earth little is said in any tale; ...
But at last the might of *Valinor *came up out of the West, and the challenge of the trumpets of Eonwë filled the sky; and Beleriand was ablaze with the glory of their arms, for the host of the *Valar *were *arrayed in forms young and fair and terrible*, and the mountains rang beneath their feet."
This, I would propose, can not mean the Vanyar and those Noldor led by Finarfin who had not joined Fëanor's rebellion. Though only Eonwë is named, there must have been an impressive array of Maiar (I'd guess hammer-wielding Aulëans could have been particularly frightening and effective) and perhaps some unnamed other "spirits".
And the the order of events: first it is said that all but a few Balrogs were destroyed, and only then does Morgoth loosen his last desparate bid, the winged Dragons. Interesting food for thought for a "Balrog vs, Dragon fight" thread.
As for Eärendil, his ship Vingilot (and I would suppose he himself) was hallowed by the Valar, and could fly, so this is no longer the Eärendil who arrived in Valinor with the embassy of the Two Kindred (and he had already broken through the ban of the Valar with the help of the Silmaril). This is a vastly enhanced Eärendil. Knocking Ancalagon out of the sky so he crashed into Thangorodrim, wrecking it, was quite a feat. This is why I also think that Smaug must have been far smaller than Ancalagon, because Lake Town almost certainly was something far punier than that chain of three mountains above the entrance of Angband.


----------



## Miguel

Elthir said:


> If I recall correctly, I don't think it's a given that the Valar were at the War of Wrath.



While there are no Valarin names mentioned, this might get people to think they were:


> and so sudden and ruinous was the onset of that dreadful fleet that the host of the Valar was driven back, for the coming of the dragons was with great thunder, and lightning, and a tempest of fire.






Spirit of Fire said:


> This brings up an obvious question. How did the Valar get beaten back by the winged dragons



Manwë and Varda could not see or hear everything and the winged dragons were hidden in the depths of Angband, the elves or even Eönwë were probably not prepared for them. I would presume that there might have been more Maiar besides Eönwë because that war had the biggest accumulation of orcs ever if i'm not mistaken, though there were many easterlings and other creatures among them. The plains of Anfauglith could barely contain Morgoth's forces so that's like a sea of orcs, definitely more than Pelennor fields, probably more below Thangorodrim.

As for Eärendil:


> But they took Vingilot, and hallowed it, and bore it away through Valinor to the uttermost rim of the world; and there it passed through the Door of Night and was lifted up even into the oceans of heaven. Now fair and marvellous was that vessel made, and it was filled with a wavering flame, pure and bright; and Eärendil the Mariner sat at the helm, glistening with dust of elven-gems, and the Silmaril was bound upon his brow. Far he journeyed in that ship, even into the starless voids; but most often was he seen at morning or at evening, glimmering in sunrise or sunset, as he came back to Valinor from voyages beyond the confines of the world.



I would say that vessel was very powerful and maybe indestructible, the Silmaril Eärendil had might be something that added to making it or him more protected.


----------



## Elthir

Externally, according to CJRT, Tolkien never really updated this section of the Silmarillion outside of some cursory emendations -- earlier (externally) the "Children" of the Valar fought in the War of Wrath, but JRRT abandoned the concept. Tolkien also questioned the number of Balrogs (that ever existed) in the later 1950s, appearing to drastically reduce their former numbers.

Also, in a late or late-ish text Tolkien even mused about creating a_ prophecy_ given by Andreth, that Turin was to return and slay Ancalagon in the War of Wrath.

Anyway, that's just external stuff in case anyone is interested; and not meant to derail or roadblock internal opinions and theories here.


----------



## Miguel

Elthir said:


> about creating a_ prophecy_ given by Andreth, that Turin was to return and slay Ancalagon in the War of Wrath.



I like this more than killing Morgoth with Gurthang. Nah i love both actually.


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Interesting to note. I also assume that Smaug, perhaps being quite smaller than Ancalagon (and probably a fair number of the other ones too) and also a sneaky shrewd sort of worm, maybe hung back and thus when Earendil and the eagles arrived slipped away and into the wastes.


----------



## Elthir

Spirit of Fire said:


> I also assume that Smaug, perhaps being quite smaller than Ancalagon (and probably a fair number of the other ones too) and also a sneaky shrewd sort of worm, maybe hung back and thus when Earendil and the eagles arrived slipped away and into the wastes.




But in an earlier post you said (with respect to Smaug fighting in the War of Wrath):



Spirit of Fire said:


> ( . . . ) It's also even more likely given his status and size and power...such a dragon would have been a fearsome participant.




Or do you mean that you are proposing a new theory in post 203?


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Elthir said:


> But in an earlier post you said (with respect to Smaug fighting in the War of Wrath):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you mean that you are proposing a new theory in post 203?



As an absolute combatant, yes he would have been fearsome when he fought against the Maiar and Vanyar. Relative to Ancalagon however, probably much smaller and less mighty, making it easier to slip away.


----------



## Elthir

Spirit of Fire said:


> As an absolute combatant, yes he would have been fearsome when he fought against the Maiar and Vanyar. Relative to Ancalagon however, probably much smaller and less mighty, making it easier to slip away.




Or easier to get killed 

But to drag a bit of my argument to page 11, even though I realize it hails from a character, it seems strange to me that Tolkien -- writing in 1960 -- would think to change Thorin's statement from: practically forever > five thousand years > one thousand years, if he imagined the dragon that appears in _The Hobbit_ to be over 6 thousand years old.

In my opinion there's no great reason to even revise _The Hobbi_t with respect to this original statement, but yet Tolkien decides to pick a number even, and then reduce it. And if he's not thinking about Smaug and "plugging" these two numbers in, I'd be surprised.

Okay same argument with a few different words. Forgive me folks, but there's a plague out
in the real world. Although I guess I could cut the grass. Or something.


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Elthir said:


> Or easier to get killed



True, he would be more vulnerable. I mean he gets killed by Bard, a regular guy. I like to think he fought in the initial assault against the Vanyar and Maiar, then saw Earendil and the eagles flying, and as Ancalagon let loose a blast and the fire and smoke and dust engulfed the battlefied, slipped out.


----------



## Rilien

Good god, no.


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Rilien said:


> Good god, no.


I'm just speculating here. I find that scenario to be the most likely cause for his escape from the battle. How do you think he survived and fled?


----------



## Rilien

Spirit of Fire said:


> How do you think he survived and fled?



By not being born yet.


----------



## Elthir

Rilien said:


> By not being born yet.




That's also how I escaped Vesuvius in 79 A.D.!

🐾

🐾

🐾

🔥


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

That's funny -- I escaped the fate of the 🦖 that exact same way!

Much earlier, of course.


----------



## Erestor Arcamen

Amazing, that's how I avoided the Great Molasses Flood of 1919! Twas a sticky situation to be sure.


----------



## Elthir

But what would our history be like if Vesuvius had spewed millions of mole-behinds for the dinosaurs to eat?

We'll never know. Anyway, back to the topic.

No.


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Rilien said:


> By not being born yet.


I'll grant that is possible, while unlikely.


----------



## Rilien

Maybe you should read the many responses to your numerous posts in this thread, going all the way back to the beginning, O rekindler with dual identities.


----------



## grendel

"Before the rising of the sun Earendil slew Ancalagon the Black, the mightiest of the dragon-host, and cast him from the sky; and he fell upon the towers of Thangorodrim, and they were broken in his ruin. Then the sun rose, and the host of the Valar prevailed, _and well-nigh all the dragons were destroyed_..."

Well. If Smaug was not yet born and did not participate in the War of Wrath, AND if all the dragons were destroyed, AND their creator Melkor was essentially booted out of Arda, THEN you have to explain how Smaug was either born or created after the War.

Myself, I like to think that Smaug was rather young Worm at the time, and slithered away unnoticed.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

grendel said:


> _well-nigh all the dragons were destroyed_..."


"Well-nigh". There's the out.


----------



## Elthir

Yep. And Tolkien actually writes (the end of Quenta Silmarillion, _The Lost Road And Other Writings_)
that all the dragons were destroyed *"save two alone"*


----------



## Olorgando

Elthir said:


> Yep. And Tolkien actually writes (the end of Quenta Silmarillion, _The Lost Road And Other Writings_)
> that all the dragons were destroyed *"save two alone"*


Does it mean anything that exactly two dragons are named in JRRT's writings post First Age? Fram son of Frumgar of the Éothéod slew Scatha. As Appendix B in RoTK states that Frumgar led the Éothéod into the North (of the Anduin Valley) in 1977 Third Age (after the defeated Witch-king had vanished from the North in 1975 TA), Fram's feat must have occurred soon after. And Smaug was slain by Bard of Dale in 2941 TA. That would seem to take care of those two surviving dragons. Unfortunately for this hypothesis, the entry for 2570 TA states "About this time Dragon*s* reappear in the far North and begin to afflict the Dwarves." Scatha had been slain over 500 years ago by this time, so clearly dragons must have bred after the escape from the War of Wrath, meaning at least one of the escaping dragons must have been a female (none of which seem to appear in JRRT's works).

Smaug does brag about how terrifying he is to his opponents. Could this have anything to do with exploits of his at the War of Wrath? I have serious doubts. His side was basically ground to dust in that conflict, and if he was one of the two escaping, he barely got out alive. More a case for some serious Freudian repression than bragging.


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Olorgando said:


> Does it mean anything that exactly two dragons are named in JRRT's writings? Fram son of Frumgar of the Éothéod slew Scatha. As Appendix B in RoTK states that Frumgar led the Éothéod into the North (of the Anduin Valley) in 1977 Third Age (after the defeated Witch-king had vanished from the North in 1975 TA), Fram's feat must have occurred soon after. And Smaug was slain by Bard of Dale in 2941 TA. That would seem to take care of those two surviving dragons. Unfortunately for this hypothesis, the entry for 2570 TA states "About this time Dragon*s* reappear in the far North and begin to afflict the Dwarves." Scatha had been slain over 500 years ago by this time, so clearly dragons must have bred after the escape from the War of Wrath, meaning at least one of the escaping dragons must have been a female (none of which seem to appear in JRRT's works).
> 
> Smaug does brag about how terrifying he is to his opponents. Could this have anything to do with exploits of his at the War of Wrath? I have serious doubts. His side was basically ground to dust in that conflict, and if he was one of the two escaping, he barely got out alive. More a case for some serious Freudian repression than bragging.


I hardly think his side was "ground to dust" as the onslaught of the dragons almost won the day for Melkor. 



Rilien said:


> Maybe you should read the many responses to your numerous posts in this thread, going all the way back to the beginning, O rekindler with dual identities.


I wasn't here at the beginning, so there wouldn't be any responses to my posts 🤔.



grendel said:


> "Before the rising of the sun Earendil slew Ancalagon the Black, the mightiest of the dragon-host, and cast him from the sky; and he fell upon the towers of Thangorodrim, and they were broken in his ruin. Then the sun rose, and the host of the Valar prevailed, _and well-nigh all the dragons were destroyed_..."
> 
> Well. If Smaug was not yet born and did not participate in the War of Wrath, AND if all the dragons were destroyed, AND their creator Melkor was essentially booted out of Arda, THEN you have to explain how Smaug was either born or created after the War.
> 
> Myself, I like to think that Smaug was rather young Worm at the time, and slithered away unnoticed.


Two dragons escaped, and given that Morgoth was gone and his power was no longer through them - not to mention the effect of Middle-earth itself - their offspring would have been lesser, much lesser. To think that those dragons which beget Smaug, greater dragons than him by far, would not cause any disturbances or be recorded is a bit of a stretch. And Gandalf's only concern seemed to be with Smaug, so it would be a mite puzzling why he wouldn't consider these parents of the current dragons. Smaug's greatness and size definitely qualifies him to be a participant in the War of Wrath.


----------



## Elthir

Spirit of Fire said:


> To think that those dragons which beget Smaug, greater dragons than him by far, would not cause any disturbances or be recorded is a bit of a stretch.




Well, the Balrog of Moria fled from the WoW too, like the two egg-making dragons. 

And why do the two dragons who escaped the WoW _necessarily_ have to be greater by far than Smaug, when your own theory is that Smaug was one of them (and if so, appears to have laid low until the Third Age)?

🐉


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Olorgando said:


> Is "ground under water" any better? Which is what happened to Beleriand. Think before you post, moron.


That would also be referring to many on the other side. It is a by-product of the battle. Like I said, they beat back the host of the Valar until Earendil arrived, so "ground to dust" (as this is a metaphor for utter annihilation) is not an accurate representation of what occurred in this battle.


Elthir said:


> Well, the Balrog of Moria fled from the WoW too, like the two egg-making dragons.
> 
> And why do the two dragons who escaped the WoW _necessarily_ have to be greater by far than Smaug, when your own theory is that Smaug was one of them (and if so, appears to have laid low until the Third Age)?
> 
> 🐉


This is assuming Smaug isn't one of them - unlikely. But we know the world has an effect on the beings, and all experienced it. Let's just look at these facts;

1. Whatever dragons, Smaug or no, escaped from the War of Wrath would have had to be mighty. They're part of a powerful breed, it's that simple.
2. We know Middle-earth has a waning effect on organisms. A decline in greatness, lifespan, power, etc...
3. If Smaug were the offspring of one of the surviving dragons from the WoW, he would likely be of diminished power in comparison, given the effect.
4. These powerful parents somehow just disappear from existence, with no concern from Gandalf or the Wise, and don't bother to make any impact (unlikely).
5. Occam's Razor - Smaug was one of the survivors, thereby explaining his extreme might and devastation.


----------



## Elthir

Spirit of Fire said:


> This is assuming Smaug isn't one of them -




Right. So, again, why should anyone need to _necessarily_ plug in that the two surviving dragons were _greater by far_ than Smaug (as part of an argument that you characterized as a bit of a stretch)? 

Especially when your argument is that Smaug was one of the two.

Plus, Moria Balrog.


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Elthir said:


> Right. So, again, why should anyone need to _necessarily_ plug in that the two surviving dragons were _greater by far_ than Smaug (as part of an argument that you characterized as a bit of a stretch)?
> 
> Especially when your argument is that Smaug was one of the two.
> 
> Plus, Moria Balrog.


I agree with you that Smaug being one of the survivors is the most likely.

I'm just saying that if one were trying to make the case that Smaug wasn't one of the two, their might would create a lot of theoretical problems. But, like I said, I agree with you. 

I don't follow your reference to the Moria Balrog though.


----------



## Elthir

Spirit of Fire said:


> I agree with you that Smaug being one of the survivors is the most likely.




Which isn't my stance, of course.



> I'm just saying that if one were trying to make the case that Smaug wasn't one of the two, their might would create a lot of theoretical problems.




And what about if the case is made (in response to your stretch characterization earlier), that the two surviving dragons were about Smaug's size and greatness (not _far greater_ than Smaug)? It seems to me that you must think this is possible, as again, your argument is that Smaug is one of them.



> I don't follow your reference to the Moria Balrog though.




The Balrog illustrates a mighty power fleeing the WoW and "vanishing" for thousands of years -- _with respect to your argument above_ about the two surviving dragons being too powerful to go unnoticed -- the if argument you found problematic.


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Elthir said:


> Which isn't my stance, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what about if the case is made (in response to your stretch characterization earlier), that the two surviving dragons were about Smaug's size and greatness (not _far greater_ than Smaug)? It seems to me that you must think this is possible, as again, your argument is that Smaug is one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Balrog illustrates a mighty power fleeing the WoW and "vanishing" for thousands of years -- _with respect to your argument above_ about the two surviving dragons being too powerful to go unnoticed -- the if argument you found problematic.


Ah I understand now. Of course I consider most scenarios that aren't 100% clear cut to be at least possible. But for that we would have to examine the differences of dragon and Balrog behaviour. Far more do Balrogs portray the characteristics of an automaton, whereas dragons appear quite independent (e.g. Glaurung). With Melkor gone, the threat of the Balrog was quite local, as the Wise (who knew of it) didn't think it worth tackling. The dragons on the other hand were greedy, self-obsessed, and would hardly have been content with living the clandestine lifestyle the Balrog adopted. Again, not stating it as fact, just questioning the probability.


----------



## Elthir

Balrog versus Dragon behavior: my guess is that Morgoth wanted the Moria Balrog to fight to the death in the WoW, but in any case . . .



> The dragons on the other hand were greedy, self-obsessed, and would hardly have been content with living the clandestine lifestyle the Balrog adopted. Again, not stating it as fact, just questioning the probability.




But according to your proposal, Smaug was from the First Age and appears to have stayed out of "historical records" for thousands of years -- not "appearing again" until the _Third Age_!

In other words, where is this _discontent_ of Smaug in the Second Age, for example? And we could add more than two thousand years in the Third Age:

*T. A. 2570* *"About this time Dragons reappear in the far North and begin to afflict the Dwarves."

T. A. 2770* Smaug descends on Erebor.


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Elthir said:


> Balrog versus Dragon behavior: my guess is that Morgoth wanted the Moria Balrog to fight to the death in the WoW, but in any case . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But according to your proposal, Smaug was from the First Age and appears to have stayed out of "historical records" for thousands of years -- not "appearing again" until the _Third Age_!
> 
> In other words, where is this _discontent_ of Smaug in the Second Age, for example? And we could add more than two thousand years in the Third Age:
> 
> *T. A. 2570* *"About this time Dragons reappear in the far North and begin to afflict the Dwarves."
> 
> T. A. 2770* Smaug descends on Erebor.



Exactly! Smaug wasn't going to stay put, yet his alleged parents seem to have, well into the Fourth Age. Very odd it would seem. Note that I didn't say Balrogs were complete automatons, but certainly much more so than dragons.


----------



## grendel

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> "Well-nigh". There's the out.


Ah, perhaps one of you Empire types, on whom the sun never sets, could actually define "well-nigh". Because I've always interpreted it as "all," but I'm just a colonist.


----------



## Starbrow

According to Merriam-Webster, well-nigh means "almost."


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Starbrow said:


> According to Merriam-Webster, well-nigh means "almost."


Like "all but"


----------



## Elthir

Spirit of Fire said:


> Exactly! Smaug wasn't going to stay put, yet his alleged parents seem to have, well into the Fourth Age.




In your scenario Smaug stays out of (Western) history for more than 6,000 years -- would you consider two non-smaugian dragons from the WoW staying out of Western history for, another 600 years for example . . . a stretch? And if so, why?


In any case, my scenario is that the dragons were not Smaug, fled into some kind of desolate place (out of Western history anyway), made eggs, which ultimately leads to, at some point,
Smaug the hatchling. And if I was forced to guess when these dragons died, I'd start with 
Tolkien's note from his 1960 Hobbit revision.


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Elthir said:


> In your scenario Smaug stays out of (Western) history for more than 6,000 years -- would you consider two non-smaugian dragons from the WoW staying out of Western history for, another 600 years for example . . . a stretch? And if so, why?
> 
> 
> In any case, my scenario is that the dragons were not Smaug, fled into some kind of desolate place (out of Western history anyway), made eggs, which ultimately leads to, at some point,
> Smaug the hatchling. And if I was forced to guess when these dragons died, I'd start with
> Tolkien's note from his 1960 Hobbit revision.


The stretch comes from the fact they are absent completely, while Smaug raids the lands. More assumptions and loose ends to explain. Also Tolkien's note from the revision only makes things more difficult to explain (which is irrelevant anyway, since it's from Thorin's narrow minded perspective). That means you'd probably have 10+ generations of dragons breeding and then, after the effect of Middle-earth and generations down the line, come out with a super powerful Smaug. Really? 20+ dragons just chilled out, did nothing but breed, and then curled up and died? 

There are a lot of theories about the revision, but I think there is one thing about it that we can all agree on...it isn't binding. Back to Occam's Razor, we make the fewest assumptions when we sensibly credit Smaug with being in the War of Wrath, and surviving and then descending on Erebor.


----------



## Elthir

Spirit of Fire said:


> The stretch comes from the fact they are absent completely, while Smaug raids the lands.




But my question plugged numbers into the argument -- 600 years more and we are past Appendix B for example -- 600 years after your version of Smaug descended on Erebor -- after more than 6,000 years of your Smaug . . . doing something else.




> (which is irrelevant anyway, since it's from Thorin's narrow minded perspective).




Thorin didn't revise the number from 5,000 to 1,000 though.



> Really? 20+ dragons just chilled out, did nothing but breed, and then curled up and died?




What did Smaug do (in your scenario) for over 6,000 years? Or when Tolkien wrote: T. A. 2570 "About this time Dragons reappear in the far North and begin to afflict the Dwarves."


What were these dragons doing before this reappearance?


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Elthir said:


> But my question plugged numbers into the argument -- 600 years more and we are past Appendix B for example -- 600 years after your version of Smaug descended on Erebor -- after more than 6,000 years of your Smaug . . . doing something else.


Right. But we at least have knowledge that Smaug existed, so we know for a fact he was just chilling out or doing something unimportant. We can only speculate on what he was doing, which is making far less assumptions than hypothesizing what hypothetical dragons were doing.



Elthir said:


> Thorin didn't revise the number from 5,000 to 1,000 though.


Indeed he didn't. The author did so, to modify the character of Thorin. If the main purpose was to impart information about the true lifespan of dragons the omniscient author probably should have used a more authoritative source like Gandalf or Elrond. As it is, quite far from definitive because, as you have admitted, no one has any idea what Smaug had been up to so they would have had next to no clue about his lifespan.



Elthir said:


> What did Smaug do (in your scenario) for over 6,000 years? Or when Tolkien wrote: T. A. 2570 "About this time Dragons reappear in the far North and begin to afflict the Dwarves."
> 
> 
> What were these dragons doing before this reappearance?


That's a good question, and the honest answer is I don't know. But I know a lot more about dragons that for sure existed and are recorded. Smaug is one of these.

I'm still curious how you think these fearsome Winged Uruloki did nothing of consequence at all until Smaug. Isn't it more likely to assume that only one of these incredibly powerful and lustful creatures remained dormant for thousands of years than 20+?


----------



## Elthir

For anyone wondering, a version of Smaug who fled the WoW would have stayed out of recorded Western history for 6,211 years.

🐾


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Elthir said:


> For anyone wondering, a version of Smaug who fled the WoW would have stayed out of recorded Western history for 6,211 years.
> 
> 🐾


This as opposed to the other unnamed dragons who fled the WoW and stayed out of recorded Western history for...ever.


----------



## Elthir

Yeah but they died before 6,211 years had passed.

I thought of something that can take up time though . . . going in circles . . .

. . . I direct this at me, but no one bit (yet) on the orc-goblin debate, so I circled again over here.


----------



## Spirit of Fire

Elthir said:


> Yeah but they died before 6,211 years had passed.
> 
> I thought of something that can take up time though . . . going in circles . . .
> 
> . . . I direct this at me, but no one bit (yet) on the orc-goblin debate, so I circled again over here.


Okay so let's just be clear, my theory makes fewer assumptions than yours. What were these 20+ dragons up to?


----------



## Elthir

grendel said:


> Ah, perhaps one of you Empire types, on whom the sun never sets, could actually define "well-nigh".




As an aside, this isn't the language JRRT used in any case. In 1937 Tolkien wrote: *" . . . and all the dragons were destroyed, save two alone; and they fled into the East."*

So "well-nigh" is an editorial change by Christopher Tolkien, and "and they fled into the East" has been lifted out as well. Tolkien's "save two alone" goes back to the 1930 _Qenta Noldorinwa._

There's also an argument to be made that, again in 1937 at least, the flying dragons were at least partially made of steel (wings). The author of _Arda Reconstructed_ _seems_ to think the winged dragons were made of steel at this point -- maybe like the "things of iron" from the very early Fall of Gondolin (The Book of Lost Tales), that is, something like the serpents of bronze and iron in that tale, and things with *"hearts and spirits of blazing fire"*

Anyway, back to well-nigh, my _total guess_ is that Christopher Tolkien found his father's choice of words a bit too exact here.


----------



## Spirit of Fire

@Elthir you never hypothesized on what these 20+ dragons were up to all those thousands of years. It's easier to imagine what one confirmed dragon was doing rather than a large number of potential massive winged creatures (remember the pines were roaring when Smaug attacked Erebor). Scientific investigation almost always avoids over complicating theories.


----------

