Why didn't Gandolph just use an eagle to destroy the Ring?

Hmmm I dunno if what I am about to say has been said but I'm going to post it...as a clarification thing. Well strictly it's not what I said, but it's a good arguement put forth by someone else that sums up what I wanted to say without me typing it out

Gandalf makes it clear during the council of Elrond that the way to get the Ring to Mount Doom has to be one of subterfuge. When Elrond suggests that Glorfindel, one of the most powerful elves in Middle-Earth, should be part of the Fellowship, Gandalf declines. He argues that Glorfindel's power is not sufficient to open a path to Mount Doom and that it would only draw Sauron's attention and lead to the recapture of the Ring.

The same is true of the Eagles. If Gandalf and the Fellowship flew into Mordor on a giant squadron of Eagles, Sauron would see them coming miles away and squash them like bugs. The Eagles never enter the air in Mordor until a moment when Sauron's attention is totally devoted to the Ring and Mount Doom. As for them beign protected by Gandalf's magic, at no point does Gandalf claim to be Sauron's equal. And by the time Gandalf achieves his full stature (post-Balrog), Frodo is already on the way into Mordor, so the Eagles are not an option at that point.

You may ask why no reasons is given as to why he didn't use to eagles, and that may frustrate you but, they don't need to be mentioned. Once he makes the point that travelling to Mount Doom openly is not an option, he doesn't have to mention every possible way in which they could travel openly, one of which is the Eagles.

 

I'd say that's completely possible for the Eagles to have brought Frodo/Gandalf to Mount Doom . . Seven Eagles . . Nine Fell Beasts . . sounds like a good fight to me, but in the parts that the Eagles were in Action it sure looked like they were owning the Beasts. And if we're all going to get so technical about the Eagles then why didn't they just throw the ring into the middle of the dang Ocean and let Ulmo take care of it?

 

They spoke of that Galadriel in the council, and they decided it would be selfish to put off the situation for a future generation. And oceans change. Besides, Rohan and Gondor were almost destroyed when Sauron didn't have the ring.

 

Well I still think that with a diversion it could have worked. If Frodo wore the ring on a eagle, he would get corrupted, but if someone backed him up. Someone more selfless, not as easily corrupted. I mean why didn't elrond try to force the ring from Isildur? Why didn't he tried to catch it from Isildur when they stood at Mount Doom. I agree with everything said here... Wouldn't make much of a story, but that's besides the point.
First of all, I think eagles would not get as easily corrupted as a human or something like a human (hobbit, elf) They act on instinct, so I don't think they could get as corrupted as Frodo had been. And with the same distraction you had in ROTK. Even better, they might have gotten a larger army if they had joined forces before the battle of helm's deep if Aragorn would just accept his legacy. If I was Elrond I would have pushed Isildur together with the ring in the lava. Would have saved a lot of hassle. lol

 

Why couldn't Gandalf just have dug a hole and threw the ring in it!?? Why couldn't he have through it in the sea? Why couldn't he have carried it in a rag so that it didn't touch his skin and not make any contact so that the power could not crossover?

Dunno.

Its a fantasy.

 

We're not talking about changing the story here. It just seems as a better strategy, cause though the story is fantasy, I think you would keep the strategy realistic. Why go for the hard way, if you can choose the easy way. That's what we're trying to find out... If there was indeed an easier way to destroy the ring. It's just out of curiosity.

 

realistic? why would a FANTASY story be realistic.

why did tolkien have orcs? they aren't realistic?

 

If you knew something about storytelling, you might know that a lot of writers try to tell a realistic story with fantasy elements in it. Just as Star Wars is a fantasy story with sci-fiction elements in it, but its still not a science fiction movie and lotr is a fantasy story, but what makes it special is that it has a sense of realism in it, such as knights, kings, armies, battles where no magic is used (or hardly). I think that is what a lot of readers like about lotr

 

i get that from ASOIAF, but not lotr.

 

too bad for you...

 

Giant Eagles?
Undead Armies?
Orcs?
Elves?
Dwarves?
Balrogs?
Ailiphants?

fantasy for me.

 

fantasy elements. The main story is a war and war is not fantasy.

 

destroying a mystical ring not fantasy?

 

yes, but that's just another part of the story isn't it.... I never said that lotr is a realistic story, but that it has a realistic sense to it. Remember that the ring is suppose to be symbolic. People had wars over the holy grail, the arc of covenant. Are those realistic? Is there proof of those. There's as much proof of those objects as over the ring lol

 

and i think you're wrong.

 

Well I didn't expect any more of you... I knew you wouldn't understand, which is a pity.

 

you could apply that to ANY fantasy story.

 

Well no, take Harry Potter for example. I think LOTR has a larger sense of realism than Harry Potter. There are a lot more fantasy elements in it, (or it has more fantasy elements in it on scale of the story) which is meant to be the point as it reaches for a younger audience than lotr. After all the movies are rated for a younger age, cause I bet people will argue that the books of lotr are for all audiences, just as harry potter.

 

but man, magic is a fantasy element. i wouldn't except you to understand anyway.

 

Yes but magic is used in Harry Potter on a much larger scale than in Lotr, which makes lotr more realistic. I never said it wasn't in lotr at all. It seems you don't get the point, kakashi.