Someone
Adventurer
GwydapLlew said:Molonel, the problem with your position is that anything posted contradicting the Eagle Debate is shot down by you without consideration.
If someone mentions anti-air defenses (whether archers or catapults), you mention range - disregarding that the Eagles have to land to drop off their cargo.
If somone mentions Sauron's air units, you state that they are limited in scopre and incapable of handling Eagles - disregarding that there are no hard numbers (that I can find) on the Giant Eagles, just as there are no hard numbers on the Fell Beasts.
If someone mentions Sauron acting directly against an incoming Eagle, you state that the reaction time would be too slow - disregarding that we have almost no information on Sauron's powers in Mordor during the ending of the Third Age.
Well, I'm of the opinion that those reasons don't have much value when examined with a bit of a critical eye; Sauron could have flocks of dragons ready to intercept any eagle, but it's much reasonable to limit ourselves to what the books say, and I infer from the books that the eagles were a strong contender to whatever Sauron could throw at them, and that a surprise strike would have had a lot more chances of success than the conventional one. I don't see the harm in having a small plot hole, specially if it's a neccesary plot hole; with the eagle plan there would be no book, success or no success.
To be fair however, I see reasons for the "not eagle" option. In the council, it's clear that the info they have on Mordor and Sauron is nil; notice that Sauron spent a lot of time raising the nazgul's fell beasts, and they took everyone by complete surprise. It doesn't matter if Sauron can or cannot actually kill an eagle, the fact is that it's very reasonable to think that he can and thus not to risk an aerial assault and instead to go for the conventional plan.
In other words, the eagle option looks much more reasonable after reading the book.