What if SMAUG had gotten The One Ring?

[Earniel]

Well werewolves is used for people turning into wolves on occasion, right? The word 'wereworm' suggests to me a similar process, where something is turning into a worm instead of a wolf. The word, to me, implies that there are two forms to content with, which I don't think fits to either Glaurung or Smaug.

[BeardofPants]

Cross-posted. There's some clarification on the meaning of 'were' on the previous page. Translates to 'man'. So a 'were-worm' would be a man-worm based on the etymology.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Cross-posted. There's some clarification on the meaning of 'were' on the previous page. Translates to 'man'. So a 'were-worm' would be a man-worm based on the etymology.

Hehe well just as I commented on this thread's debate which ended 4 years ago, I'll say it again, it's very interesting stuff, but we're moving off topic

Though the man-worm talk is hilarious

[Gordis]

I see. Thanks for posting the quote, BoP.

It seems Tolkien used the term differently - as he never calls Beorn a "werebear"
The werewolves also seem not to be shape-shifters, but some evil spirits in animal form.

[Earniel]

Thanks BoP, that's much clearer than my short post. (Didn't know the 'were' came from 'man', I've always thought it related to 'weather'.)

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Hehe well just as I commented on this thread's debate which ended 4 years ago, I'll say it again, it's very interesting stuff, but we're moving off topic

It depends, I don't think it's off-topic if the nature of Smaug may be a defining factor in what he'd do with the Ring.

Originally Posted by Gordis

It seems Tolkien used the term differently - as he never calls Beorn a "werebear"
The werewolves also seem not to be shape-shifters, but some evil spirits in animal form.

I was thinking that type of werewolves was more from ordinary mythology than Tolkien's writings after I posted earlier. Although I do seem to remember in the Silmarillion, that Sauron in his function as chief of werewolves was during his shape-shifting days. I can't speak of the rest of the werewolves, it's been too long that I've read of them.

(But I have to say skin-changer sounds far more interesting than were-bear or furrier. )

[CAB]

Tolkien's were-creatures aren't necessarily that different from the others in literature and folklore in my opinion. He retained the most important feature: a person's spirit trapped inside the body of an animal.

Gordis, I must admit I'm still not convinced that Glaurung was so different from Smaug and the other dragons. I wonder why, for instance, Morgoth and Sauron would imprison spirits in what seems to be a large number of wolves (werewolves) but only one dragon. Certainly dragons must have been a larger "investment", so why skimp on the spirits? Also, it is said that Bilbo was in great danger of falling under Smaug's spell. Would a mere animal be capable of putting people under spells? I'm not really sure what to think of this.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by CAB

Gordis, I must admit I'm still not convinced that Glaurung was so different from Smaug and the other dragons.

I am not sure of all this either. The note about Glaurung posted above is very obscure. It might have been abandoned soon after being written.
"Wereworms of the Last Desert" in the Hobbit seem to be just a colorful detail, without any precise background.

I think that Tolkien first considered shape-shifting to be quite widely spread: hence Beorn and wereworms in the Hobbit, werewolves in LOTR, Radagast called "a master of shapes and changes of hue", nazgul changing shape into vultures in LOTR drafts etc. Later, when Tolkien was completing LOTR, he decided that shape-shifting was a rare thing, only possible for some self-incarnate Maiar, like First Age Sauron, or for Luthien. Sauron after his first death already lost this ability, and I doubt that Gandalf or Saruman ever could do it. Nazgul certainly not - as the LOTR now stands. With this, Tolkien may have re-thought his werewolves from original shape-shifters to spirits trapped in wolf bodies. Then the final touches to the new conception were made in Morgoth's Ring.
I think Smaug in the Hobbit was never meant to be an evil spirit in animal form, just a very clever (and malicious) animal, on par with Great Eagles, Huan, Carcharoth, Mearas etc.

Originally Posted by CAB

I wonder why, for instance, Morgoth and Sauron would imprison spirits in what seems to be a large number of wolves (werewolves) but only one dragon. Certainly dragons must have been a larger "investment", so why skimp on the spirits? Also, it is said that Bilbo was in great danger of falling under Smaug's spell. Would a mere animal be capable of putting people under spells? I'm not really sure what to think of this.

I think the "magic effort" needed "to house" a spirit depended on the strength of the creature whose body was used as target. Dragons are the most formidable of all animals, so, maybe it took a Vala to "turn" them, while Sauron could produce werewolves by hundreds.
As for Smaug's spell, I think it was not "a spell" as such, but a reference to the hypnotizing power of Dragon's eyes - a widely spread notion in folklore. Snakes produce the same effect on mice and small birds without any magic involved.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Gordis

I am not sure of all this either. The note about Glaurung posted above is very obscure. It might have been abandoned soon after being written.
Wereworms of the Last Desert in the Hobbit seem to be just a colorful detail, without any precise background.

I would also wonder, if a dragon could be as intelligent, powerful, and evil as Smaug without having an outside spirit trapped within it's body, why bother putting one in Glaurung?

Originally Posted by Gordis

I think the "magic effort" needed "to house" a spirit depended on the strength of the creature whose body was used as target. Dragons are the most formidable of all animals, so, maybe it took a Vala to "turn" them, while Sauron could produce werewolves by hundreds.

This is possible, but I'm not so sure about it. The strength of the body seems quite unrelated to spiritual matters. On the other hand, maybe a powerful mind would make it difficult to house a spirit in a dragon (assuming mind and spirit are different things, and it appears that in Tolkien's world that they are). Smaug certainly had a strong mind.

Originally Posted by Gordis

As for Smaug's spell, I think it was not "a spell" as such, but a reference to the hypnotizing power of Dragon's eyes - a widely spread notion in folklore. Snakes produce the same effect on mice and small birds without any magic involved.

I don't think I can agree with this. Glaurung's spell was clearly magical and since Smaug's (and other dragons') power was so similar (if there was any difference at all) it seems unlikely that it would be merely "natural".

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by CAB

I would also wonder, if a dragon could be as intelligent, powerful, and evil as Smaug without having an outside spirit trapped within it's body, why bother putting one in Glaurung?

Maybe to control the dragon better?

[Ingwe]

I could only say one thing, if Smaug's breath could have ever destroyed the Ring, and Gandalf knew this, I believe Gandalf would probably say something along the lines of...."oops, we killed him, aw crap!"

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by CAB

Would a mere animal be capable of putting people under spells?

Absolutely yes. This one spells me routinely.

[Mornorngûr]

The Spiders of Mirkwood weren't spirits of any kind trapped inside of bodyS, yet they were intelligent. The same goes for Shelob, these all came from Ungoliant aforetime when she bred with herself. It seems that the offspring would inherit some of their parents capabilities, including intelligence. This may also go for the Eagles in the Hobbit and the Lotr, they seem to be other Eagles than Thorondor's yet of the same race. You could even look at Elrond or Luthien amongst others, they had powers and capabilities inherited from their parents that others of their races did not posses.

I would like to assume that the first Dragons conceived by Morgoth were Maia who changed from their Balrog form and took on the raiment that Morgoth had devised, in this case it was the body's of the Dragons(The same as Aüle made the Dwalf bodies without spirits inside) which the Balrog Maiar now took up. After many years the Dragons would have bred and had offspring, Smaug was not a original Dragon and was therefore not a Maia, howere he still inherited alot of his make-up from his Maiar forefathers.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Smaug picks it up... curiously. "What's this thing that didn't burn up in my firey breath?" He examines it, notices how it grows to fit his finger, tries it on... and discovers its nature.

What happens next?

There would be a hot time, in thold town, tonight, all old towns.
Much would depend on Samug's desires. Does he want power, or just more riches? Whichever he desires, he would then obtain.

[Amanda]

If they didn't add in the part in where Smaug couldn't smelt the One Ring, that'd be on interesting plot hole. For one thing, Peter Jackson would have had more time to work on something else since the Lord of the Rings books wouldn't have existed, and thus wouldn't have inspired the movie.

If Smaug had gotten the one ring, it's hard to tell what he would be capable of doing. He would be able to do... whatever the writer (Tolkien) wanted him to do. I can be sure of one thing, though -- that it wouldn't be time travel. Maybe +200 armor, 50% improved health regeneration ability, +1,000 degrees for his fire breathing special weapon, 50% increased speed and rate of fire, greater agility, and the ability to blow up his enemies just by thinking about it. He would still be destroyable, but it would take an awful lot. He still wouldn't be as powerful as Sauron. "He does not share power." Anyone who possesses the ring aside from Sauron seems to lose everything that they are in short order. Even Sauron himself had to sacrifice much of his native abilities and appearance to forge it. I don't think I would want to be anywhere close to the One Ring, let alone putting the thing on.

I'd say if anything, it'd have to agree that it'd have a lot to do with gold, mithril, and other such treasure and loot. If he kills an enemy who has 20 gold pieces, maybe those 20 gold pieces would magically become 40. Then he could use it to buy a nice hat. Because, as we all know, you can't go wrong with a dragon who wears a nice hat.

"Lookin' dapper there, Smaug!"

"Thanks! I won't burn your city down then! I'll just go over to the next town to the east and burn it instead! See what you can accomplish just by being polite?"

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lefty Scaevola

There would be a hot time, in thold town, tonight, all old towns.
Much would depend on Samug's desires. Does he want power, or just more riches? Whichever he desires, he would then obtain.

Smaug is by nature a loot-seeking guy. And apparently he is fond of sitting tight on whatever hoarded loot he has acquired. With that in mind, perhaps the most obvious thing Smaug would do is focus entirely on the prestige the ring, while caring little for the other riches. It all depends on whether dragons think in quantity or in quality!

If a dragon like Smaug thinks in quality, perhaps he would have become careless about the other riches since they paled in comparison the One Ring.
In this instance he probably would have been so consumed by the ring that he would have actively used it, in some way or another. Or at least look at it a lot, like Gollum.

If it's quantity, then, well the One Ring is just another piece of jewelry on top of his mound. And probably safer since he would distinguish less between its quality and the other riches.

I'm actually inclined to believe that dragons are quantitatively-minded. And that would be good news for the good people of ME!

[The One Ring, The Precous]

What I would say what would happen if he did get the ring, he would keep it to himself until the 13 dwarves with Bilbo and Gandalf came to slay him!

[Jon S.]

I'd like to raise a different question, one I came across this evening in another LOTR forum and returned here (for the first time in quite a while) to present to the cognoscenti:

Did Smaug covet the Ring?

I actually think (though I'm not certain) I recall that in the last movie, Smaug actually saw it and commented on it without coveting it per se.

But never mind, we're discussing the book now. I can't recall ... Smaug obviously experienced Bilbo being invisible but did he ever actually "see" the Ring? And if not, did he - or could he, even - sense it?

If he did, why didn't he covet it?

If he didn't, had he seen it, do you think he would have?

The post some years ago that said he was a mere animal without a fëa suggests he would not have.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Absolutely yes. This one spells me routinely.

I thought I would also add that Teddy Bear died, about a year after I posted his picture here, of immune-mediated hemolytic anemia. That is an immune system disease where your white blood cells fail to recognize your red blood cells as being "you" and attack and destroy them. We controlled his illness as long as we could with steroids which worked in the short term but destroyed his liver over time so we had to put him down. He's buried in the back yard under a plaque reading, "Teddy Bear - he was a brave boy." Dart (our other cat) took it the hardest of all. We could never "replace" Teddy but we brought in Lucy (the tabby) to be Dart's new playmate. They get along splendidly today.

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Did Smaug covet the Ring?

... Smaug obviously experienced Bilbo being invisible but did he ever actually "see" the Ring? And if not, did he - or could he, even - sense it?

If he did, why didn't he covet it?

If he didn't, had he seen it, do you think he would have?

In the book, I don’t think Smaug ever saw Bilbo’s Ring. In fact, I don’t think he ever saw Bilbo! He smelled him, heard him, felt his air (probably referring to the draft coming from the secret entrance Bilbo and the Dwarves opened), but he never saw him. Ergo, he didn’t see the Ring, either.

Do you suppose Smaug even knew about the Rings of Power? And how old was he, anyway? Would he remember the end of the Second Age and the victory of the Last Alliance of Elves and Men over Sauron, for instance, or the War between Sauron and Eregion 1600 years before that, or even the end of the First Age? Or was he much younger: hatched sometime during the Third Age from survivors or descendents of First Age dragons? I am assuming that the older he was, the more likely he was know about the Rings of Power, simply because he’d have had more opportunity to find out: I don’t imagine dragons as particularly sociable creatures, so news might be a little slow in reaching them.

He could not covet what he did not know.

He would not covet what he had not seen.

But had he known and seen, well, he was, after all, a dragon. And that is covetousness.

I’m not certain dragons were without fëar.* They were certainly monstrous beasts; but were they, like Carcharoth, imbued with an evil spirit? If so, were all of them so imbued, since they apparently hatched (or were believed to hatch), or only some of them? Would that make them Barrow-wightish?â€* I don’t recall what Tolkien said on the subject, if anything.

---

* Note: fëar, pl of fëa, Quenya (High Elven) for “spirit�. As opposed to hröar, pl of hröa, “body�. Not to be confused with English “fear�.

â€* Barrow-wights were dead bodies inhabited by the spirits of Elves that refused the summons to Mandos, or so Tolkien implies. Which throws up another issue: were there evil Elves? Eöl and his son Maeglin seem to fit that description.

[Alec]

I think if smaug had gotten the ring he would of lost it in the gold or would of destroyed it when burning Bilbo if he did.