• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

Beacon Hills

There is no doubt that the White Mountains were very high. However, there is also no doubt that the Beacon Hills did not reach to that height. They were the highest elevation points of the Drúadan Forest. You don't have to be an ecologist to know that forests do not grow in those heights. In effect, aragil's claims about the highest elevations in the White Mountains make this point quite neatly. If we consider that the beacons in the movies were the highest peaks of the mountains (we surely don't see any higher peaks around them), then those peaks couldn't have been as high as the data shown by aragil, since they had to support forests.

Sorry, it wasn't true to the book. This is very noticeable to a guy (like me) who thinks "ecologically". I have a very clear picture of the Beacon Hills in my mind, and it was drawn from the description of the books, that make reference to the Forest.

I remember when FotR came out that I thought Anduin was a wimpy river in the movie, certainly not "Anduin the Great" that we were used to know from the books. Orcs couldn't reach the opposite margin at Sarn Gebir with their arrows. The river in the films is quite narrow compared to the "real" Anduin from the books. So what? It only matters to a guy (like me) who pays attention to these things. And I can live with it.

However, to "live with it" does not mean "to be blind to it". Anduin is too small; the Beacon Hills have become Beacon Mountains. There is no doubt about it.
 
I believe that the Map is quite accurate in showing where the beacons were located- and they are not on the White Mountains, so I don't think anybody is arguing that anymore. Two of them were certainly described as being on Mountains, and their elevation was high enough to be seen (in some cases) from 100 miles off. These are not 'hills' in the traditional sense.
 
Iluvatar said:
In my opinion, there is absolutely no way that the beacons as presented in RotK would have been possible. They're simply too inaccessible. Was it possible to get for people of that technology to climb them? Probably, yes, although they'd have to tremendously fit and acclimatised. But her's the thing. It's not just enough to get to the beacon. First you've got to build it. Which means you've got to lug the material for of the beacon (the structure itself and the wood) to the peak.
The eagles, using elven rope to lower it to the men below.

Iluvatar said:
Once you got it built you've got to man it. And supply it. And resupply it.
Tom Bombadil used to help with that when he needed a little time away from Goldberry.

Iluvatar said:
Plus, the people who are manning the beacon (you'd need at least two) have to live somewhere (even if it's just within the base of the beacon), so that's got to be lugged up there too.
"Alex, I'll take 'Eagles and Elven Rope' for 500."

Iluvatar said:
Finally, how long was a tour of duty up there?
One month by Shire reckoning.
 
I actually got into an arguement with my evil brother over this and for once he was the one defending the Lord of the Rings in some manner. Usually he's telling me that if he had designed the castles or planned the battle it would've gone much better, etc.

I said I thought it was silly looking and thought maybe we could agree for once, but just because I said it he had to disagree and he got out a map of New Zealand and showed me that the mountains are much shorter than our mountains in Oregon so the dang things really would work. He said, after all, Heidi, Timberline Lodge is at so and so many feet which is taller than those mountains and so and so feet has snow only half the year, they need to keep fake snow there there rest of the time for the skiers, and I said, "Well it looked more rocky." and he looked at me cynically.
 
If anyone is interested in peak-to-peak signaling you can check it out here. It is a Boy Scouts of America site.

The distance at which a singal can be seen depends on the altitude of the peaks....but the earths curvature limits that to about 400 miles. Usually you can "burn" a peak from 50 to 100 miles away with no problem.
 
Foe-Hammer said:
Usually you can "burn" a peak from 50 to 100 miles away with no problem.

See you do learn something new everyday :p

Cool Info!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top