Is Third Age Middle-earth larger than Beleriand?

[Radaghast]

there is a point you missed. There were already enough flying winged creatures, namely fellbeasts, against Gondor. And in the siege of Minas Tirith, they were very numerous, at the same time they inflicted heavy losses on the soldiers of Gondor. In the War of the Ring, dragons may have been used not only in the wars of the elves, but also in the famous battle of Dale. No matter how much they, they could not ensure win the war, because the third age dragons were not as big as the first age dragons. They were even smaller than half of first age dragons.

I don't understand your point. What do the flying mounts of the Nazgûl have to do with the dragons? What does their size matter if they're deployed by Sauron? There is not enough data to assume dragons were ever seen let alone used by Sauron. Your reasoning is faulty at best.

 

[Turin_Turambar]

I don't understand your point. What do the flying mounts of the Nazgûl have to do with the dragons? What does their size matter if they're deployed by Sauron? There is not enough data to assume dragons were ever seen let alone used by Sauron. Your reasoning is faulty at best.

I'm just speculating anyway. Also I've read that flying mounts of the Nazgul are descended from cold drakes. Is that true?

 

[Radaghast]

You may be right. But in the all middle-earth books I remember, there is no mention of smeagol being good or bad at all. It's just called mean soul as in the example you gave. And because it's "mean soul" doesn't mean it's absolute evil. All that is known is that because of the ring, he got very bad and his life was ruined that's all! I mostly wonder if smeagol fought for melkor or manwe in the battle of dagor dagorath, i.e. in the army of the good or the army of the bad.

I never said "absolute evil". The example I gave was written by Tolkien himself. You can't disregard it just because it doesn't jibe with your friend's views. If Gollum's life was ruined it's because he ruined it.

 

[Deimos]

Ent has so many thoughts and things 'lobbed into his court' he can't keep track.
He is starting a physical list.
There are also several threads of significance going on in PM with several members... hard to keep up with all the questions and subjects there too.
Thanks for reminding Ent of this one.
Perhaps we should start a thread in some place where 'it just doesn't fit anything else'... and is acceeptable... and hope it doesn't spin too far into circles not fit for the Forum. (there is a great potential of that of course.)

Pax, Ent, but I think the original thread** is as good a place as any for it.
I can't tell you how many times I've come across similar comments (here and elsewhere) describing both Boromir and Denethor not only as arrogant, but flat out evil jerks.
Considering the OP's questiont the original thread is the place to, if not entirely dispel that opinion, at least show that there is more to a character than what his outward actions might imply.
The bonus is that in discussing the book character and not the movie character, someone reading that discussion might get the (entirely correct) idea that the book character is a lot more complex than the screen character, and conclude that there might be some merit in reading the books (always a good thing 🙂)

**Boromir (and Denethor) character

 

[Radaghast]

I'm just speculating anyway. Also I've read that flying mounts of the Nazgul are descended from cold drakes. Is that true?

Doubtful. Their description seems to suggest they are prehistoric reptiles. Tolkien never intended them to be pterodactyls but agreed in a letter that they were pterodactyl-like:

Pterodactyl. Yes and no. I did not intend the steed of the Witch-King to be what is now called a ‘pterodactyl’, and often is drawn (with rather less shadowy evidence than lies behind many monsters of the new and fascinating semi-scientific mythology of the 'Prehistoric'). But obviously it is pterodactylic and owes much to the new mythology, and its description even provides a sort of way in which it could be a last survivor of older geological eras.]

• The Letters of JRR Tolkien, #211

It seems likely or at least plausible that Morgoth bred the cold-drakes and other dragons from prehistoric stock, i.e. dinosaurs and flying reptiles, though.

Pax, Ent, but I think the original thread** is as good a place as any for it.
I can't tell you how many times I've come across similar comments (here and elsewhere) describing both Boromir and Denethor not only as arrogant, but flat out evil jerks.
Considering the OP's questiont the original thread is the place to, if not entirely dispel that opinion, at least show that there is more to a character than what his outward actions might imply.
And the bonus is that in discussing the book character and not the movie character, someone reading that discussion might get the (eniterely correct) idea that the book character is a lot more complex the screen character, and conclude that there might be some merit in reading the books (always a good thing 🙂)

**Boromir (and Denethor) character

I think there is a case to be made that Denethor had some evil qualities. Tolkien himself said he was on his way to becoming a "tyrant" and that he would have dealt harshly with the human allies of Mordor if Gondor defeated Sauron:

If he had survived as victor, even without use of the Ring, he would have taken a long stride towards becoming himself a tyrant, and the terms and treatment he accorded to the deluded peoples of east and south would have been cruel and vengeful. He had become a 'political' leader: sc. Gondor against the rest.

• The Letters of JRR Tolkien, #181

 

[Ent]

Let's take it to the original thread and not derail this one.

 

[Deimos]

I think there is a case to be made that Denethor had some evil qualities. Tolkien himself said he was on his way to becoming a "tyrant" and that he would have dealt harshly with the human allies of Mordor if Gondor defeated Sauron:

• The Letters of JRR Tolkien, #181

Correct.
But there is a Grand Canyon wide chasm (I'm from AZ 😉) between "becoming" and "is".
That is why the first thing I requested of Ent is to define what he means when he uses the word "became".
And that onotological question is what the discussion (I hope) will address/explain.

 

[Elthir]

And he is currently one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about both Middle-earth and Tolkien.

George Wade: Well that's just silly. Have you met everybody on the planet?
Lucy Kelson: Goodbye George.

From the film Two Weeks Notice (2002)

9- He said that the story that Tolkien focused on and wrote the most was the life stories of celeborn and galadriel, both together and individually. In other words, Tolkien wrote the lives of celeborn and galadriel longer than other subjects.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "longer than other subjects", but Galadriel and Celeborn didn't exist until the draft writing for The Lord of the Rings. The Tale of Túrin -- and just for one example -- existed many years before this, and is extant in various forms, both prose and poetic.

And it's not like JRRT gave up writing the long prose Children of Húrin after The Lord of the Rings was written, or after it was published.

Perhaps something else is meant?

Anyway. I nap.

 

[Ent]

That is why the first thing I requested of Ent is to define what he means when he uses the word "became".

THIS is what it was, Oh, thank you. Ent couldn't recall it and hasn't had time to locate and get it onto his 'need to follow up' list. Will come soon.