Smaug: Wyvern or Dragon?

[GMMichael]

Every RPG should have a feature to empower your weapon by giving it a rousing speech about its history.

I call that feature Hero Points.

By the way, my monster "authority" would be the AD&D 2e monster publications... those wyverns had "only hind legs."

 

[Umbran]

They're pretty much described as enormous, stinking, featherless birds, but the "fell beasts" the Nazgûl use as flying mounts in the LR are about the closest thing Tolkien has to a wyvern, and they do seem to have bat-wings.

Yep. But they aren't described with the words Tolkien uses for dragons - dragon, drake, serpent, or worm. So while they have wyvern-style body shape, I don't see a strong argument from the text that they were dragon-kin.

 

[MarkB]

Every RPG should have a feature to empower your weapon by giving it a rousing speech about its history.

+2 Exposition Bonus.

 

[Hriston]

Yep. But they aren't described with the words Tolkien uses for dragons - dragon, drake, serpent, or worm. So while they have wyvern-style body shape, I don't see a strong argument from the text that they were dragon-kin.

No, they aren’t described as dragon related. However, in his Letter #211, JRRT does admit to their being “pterodactylic” which would suggest to me at least an association with the category of reptiles. Of course a pterosaur is no closer than a bird is to a serpent, but I also think it isn’t unusual for dragons to be compared to dinosaurs, for example, in the modern imagination.

 

[Umbran]

... but I also think it isn’t unusual for dragons to be compared to dinosaurs, for example, in the modern imagination.

Define "modern". The Hobbit was first published in 1937, and first written some years before that for his kids.

The top question here is about Smaug. Whatever the Ringwraiths are riding, they are far inferior creatures to Smaug, and are not linked to Smaug in the text. Smaug's been dead for about 78 years before we see the Ringwraiths on those mounts.

So, I don't see how they stand as evidence of what Smaug's body shape should be, other than that their mere existence hints at possibility.

Note: I don't mind how he was depicted in the movie. But I take it as a design liberty on the moviemaker's part, not something particularly supported by the text.

 

[Maxperson]

He's a 1e D&D gold dragon with bat wings instead of being wingless.

"There he lay, a vast red-golden dragon, fast asleep; a thrumming came from his jaws and nostrils, and wisps of smoke, but his fires were low in slumber. Beneath him, under all his limbs and his huge coiled tail, and about him on all sides stretching away across the unseen floors, lay countless piles of precious things, gold wrought and un-wrought, gems and jewels, and silver red-stained in the ruddy light."

 

[Dausuul]

From the attack on Laketown:

"The black arrow sped straight from the string, straight for the hollow by the left breast where the foreleg was flung wide."

Smaug has a "foreleg" which is situated near his chest. If he were on the ground, this could conceivably refer to a wing being used as a leg; but in this scene, Smaug is airborne, using his wings as wings. It would make no sense to describe them here as legs. (And there are plenty of references here and elsewhere to his "wings.")

So, canonically, Smaug has four legs. Or at least forelegs.

 

[Dioltach]

If only he'd been forewarned! Then he'd have been forearmed as well.

 

[Andvari]

From the attack on Laketown:

"The black arrow sped straight from the string, straight for the hollow by the left breast where the foreleg was flung wide."

So Smaug has a "foreleg" which is situated near his "chest." If he were on the ground, this could conceivably refer to a wing being used as a leg; but in this scene, Smaug is airborne, using his wings as wings. It would make no sense to describe them here as legs. (And there are plenty of references here and elsewhere to his "wings.")

So, canonically, Smaug has four legs. Or at least forelegs.

Or maybe he only has a single leg, which happens to be a foreleg.

 

[Hriston]

Define "modern". The Hobbit was first published in 1937, and first written some years before that for his kids.

By modern I meant the period of time in which dinosaur fossils have been recognized as such, so from the early 19th century forward. Before that they were often simply mislabeled as belonging to some fantastic creature, for example in China where they were considered to be and documented as dragon bones.

The top question here is about Smaug. Whatever the Ringwraiths are riding, they are far inferior creatures to Smaug, and are not linked to Smaug in the text. Smaug's been dead for about 78 years before we see the Ringwraiths on those mounts.

So, I don't see how they stand as evidence of what Smaug's body shape should be, other than that their mere existence hints at possibility.

Neither do I. Has someone in this thread said they do?

Note: I don't mind how he was depicted in the movie. But I take it as a design liberty on the moviemaker's part, not something particularly supported by the text.

I'd forgotten that he was depicted in the Jackson films with only two legs, so it didn't bother me more than all the other horrendous decisions that were made in the making of that movie. Apparently, they did it because they were using motion capture of the actor's performance.