Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is just a forum to see which one of the two "greatest" warriors in Middle-Earth would win in a battle against each other, even though they would never have one. Give the name and the reason why they would win.

We all love them both, but which one is the superior warrior.

My vote goes to. . . .

LEGOLAS!

He has more weaponry and more of a skill than Aragorn.
He's better with a bow, MUCH better, and he has 2 knives to circulate around and get anyone.



What do you think?

Well...of course everyones gonna say Legolas beacuse all girl LOTR fans love him....defiantly Aragorn though

i had have to say: there's already a thread like this ...

lol!

legolas because he has more experiance and is far more nimble and could just pick of aragorn long raange with his bow.

aragorn has already deflected arrows with his sword and knife.

and where legolas has speed and nimbleness....aragorn has brute strength and a will of steel

but i digress

...and a chin to die for

and he gets the girl

although Legolas gets the girls.


and on the subject, what experience does Legolas have? That an 80 year old ranger doesnt?

actually when you think about it...not much really

i mean, leggy has been around a lot longer, but i'm sure that eveything he's ever done so has aragorn

hm...i wonder if legolas ever gets bored of the same things day in and day out?

I dont think legolas is too old, why he was sent on behalf of elves is beyond me.

I mean think about it, your in Rivendell holding a counsel and need a strong and capable elf, so they sent Legolas. Its not like he was their only choice being in a huge elf settlement.

Originally posted by The Inkeeper
I dont think legolas is too old, why he was sent on behalf of elves is beyond me.

I mean think about it, your in Rivendell holding a counsel and need a strong and capable elf, so they sent Legolas. Its not like he was their only choice being in a huge elf settlement.

actually legolas is something like 4 or 5 thousand years old and the son of the king of mirkwood.

Why would legolas and aragorn be fighting?

*is purposely being annoying*

Originally posted by Dresta
actually legolas is something like 4 or 5 thousand years old and the son of the king of mirkwood.

I am aware of his princehood, but he is not 4 or 5 thousand years old.


If you can find me proof, solid proof from Tolkien himself, that states otherwise, then show me


And being the son of a king does not make you immedietely an amazing warrior, as orlando proved faultlessly in Troy.

Originally posted by The Inkeeper
And being the son of a king does not make you immedietely an amazing warrior, as orlando proved faultlessly in Troy.

Good example.

no...i doubt he's that old, as there was another legolas in gondolin, i think

unfortunately it was tolkien who wrote him in as to be a part of the nine...

trust me he is several thousand years old and a powerful elf warrior. and the innkeeper how the hell do you know that he isn't. you do know that elfs are immortal don't you

Yes i am also aware elves are immortal, unless killed in battle or by grief.

Legolas is not, and i stress that word, several thousand years old, until you can prove it (which you can not because Legolas' age is never given) i will continue to not believe you.

doh

do not provoke the ire of the one who calls himself....dun dun duuuuuuunnnn

The InnKeeper eek


just j/k btw....

plus you know that legolas is old because in the book when he enters Fanghorn forest he says something like:
'This forest is very old, even older than i'
and if you can be bothered to look it up in the book i'm sure you will find that passage or at least one very similar to it.

I know my Legolas facts. He is not several thousand years old, he is not that important a character in the books, he is not even blonde.


Dont argue with me about the elf.

Originally posted by The Inkeeper
I know my Legolas facts. He is not several thousand years old, he is not that important a character in the books, he is not even blonde.


Dont argue with me about the elf.

We don't know if he's blonde or not! It's never specified. He very well could be blonde.

doesn't it say he has dark hair at some point..

Yes it points out in FotR that he is infact a brunette, or at least of dark hair.

^P#?

Im trying to find it for you

most likely if legolas is a wood elf, it would be highly unlikely he'd be blonde...as it would not do to blend in with their surroundings

it was only in the animated version and PJ's version that he was blonde...

*admits defeat*

Yesssa


"Frodo looked up at the Elf standing tall above him, as he gazed into the night, seeking a mark to shoot at. His head was dark, crowned with sharp white stars that glittered in the black pools of the sky behind. " The Fellowship of the Ring: "The Great River"

I don't belive that. I remember that passage...
His head was dark because it was NIGHT TIME. It doesn't say his hair was dark...and knowing Tolkien and all his details I think he would have said HAIR not head...

Well as its the only reference to Legolas' crown and hair-colour, we will have to accept it.


And if it was only stated because it was night-time, would all of legolas be dark, rather than just his head?

I'm tempted to post....about...Legolas...but I don't want to.

*is scared* fear

no please do...i'm out of the argument for now

and, his kind of elf is stated to have dark hair.

"They were a race high and beautiful, the older Children of the world, and among them the Eldar were as kings, who are now gone: the People of the Great Journey, the People of the Stars. They were tall, fair of skin and grey-eyed, though their locks were dark, save in the golden house of Finarfin ..." Appendix F: Part II, "On Translation,"

The winner of a battle between Legolas and Aragorn would be Treebeard or Quickbeam or some random Ent, because Ents are a hell of a lot cooler than Elves or Men.

Originally posted by The Inkeeper
Well as its the only reference to Legolas' crown and hair-colour, we will have to accept it.


And if it was only stated because it was night-time, would all of legolas be dark, rather than just his head?

It just says his head because Tolkien was emphasizing what legolas was doing:"gazing into the night" you gaze with your head, it's just good writing...It wouldn't sound good if he had said..."Legolas' body was dark." It is nightime, and it was very dark, Frodo was looking up at legolas and so he sees that it's shadowy, and dark. There is no reference to his hair color at all.

As for that passage, that is a general statement for the general look of that particular race of elves. The hair color, skin color and hight can vary with each individual elf. Are all caucasians fair-skined? are all african-americans the same shade of skin?
That passage doesn't prove anything.

If there was a prove for Legolas' hair colour, people wouldn't need to argue about it...

All there is are vague assumptions, but the only point supporting the theory of a blond Legolas is the fact that the 'Elven king' appearing in the Hobbit - without much doubt the later Thranduil - is mentioned to have had... golden hair.

It has to be noted though that the Hobbit originally wasn't planned to be set in Middle-earth and it's possible that Tolkien dyed the Elven-king's hair without really intending him to be of Sindarin descent yet.
Originally posted by Smodden
His head was dark because it was NIGHT TIME.
Unless my memory is cheating me, the moon was rather full around the time the scene is set in; I don't think blond hair looks mentionably dark in moonlight.


As for the age, no, Tolkien never officially stated how old Legolas was. The movie makers defined his year of birth as 87 TA as Bloom mentioned in an interview; this would make him 2931 years old during the War of the Ring. This number is now widely accepted as 'true' although it's pure fanfiction.
Originally posted by Dresta
'This forest is very old, even older than i'
and if you can be bothered to look it up in the book i'm sure you will find that passage or at least one very similar to it.
This forest is old, very old. So old that almost I feel young again. Lil braggart, he is

Originally posted by Exabyte
If there was a prove for Legolas' hair colour, people wouldn't need to argue about it...

All there is are vague assumptions

*agrees*

Originally posted by Exabyte
I don't think blond hair looks mentionably dark in moonlight.


True, but it is possible:
http://img72.echo.cx/img72/7392/ttt13058cb.jpg
^Notice how most of the hair is indeed darkened by the night...save for a stray golden lock that floats about untamed.
http://img12.echo.cx/img12/3599/manipsaragornlegolas01click6at.jpg

Legolas, along with Gimli and Boromir were sent because they all arrived with news, or for counsel, just before the Council of Elrond, so it seemed they were involved in these matters by fate, just as Frodo was. It is not by coincidence that Boromir had a dream, that Legolas came to report that Gollum had fled from Mirkwood at the same time as Gimli came to consult Elrond. They were meant to come together. Also, they were all leaders of the younger generation: Legolas son of the king, Gimli son of Gloin of the Lonely Mountains, Boromir son of the ruler of Gondor. Young enough to go questing, but leader enough to represent their kindreds. It would have made sense to send Glorfindel, or Elladan or Elrohir, but I think Elrond suspected that the north would be attacked and they would need their leaders. The Fellowship already had Gandalf. Not to mention that there's that "9" thing, and Merry and Pippin were already dead set on going.

Legolas' exact age was NEVER stated by Tolkien. We can only speculate through some of Legolas' recollections and family history. But he's definitely NOT 4 or 5 thousand years old. Yes, he would certainly be old compared to the rest of the Fellowship, but as an Elf, he's still in his "tweens". For more info, go here.

Just because he's immortal, it doesn't mean that he has lived as long as the other Elves have.

As for the hair:

Tolkien never specified what Legolas' hair color was, nor do I think that he ever intended to, so we're all screwed. It might very well be punkish orange with blue highlights for all we know. The point is, trying to figure out Legolas' hair color is like trying to figure out how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop. "The world may never know." It all just comes down to personal preference.

Having said that, I prefer my Leggy as a blondie, since I've always seen him that way.

For one, if you're going to bank on him following a genetic trend, the only possibility we're given is blonde, his father's hair color. His father had blonde hair, so it's a *possible* genetic trend. If the elven genome in Tolkien's Middle-earth is the same as ours, blonde hair is recessive and we limit the possibilities of his mother's hair to blonde or brown/brunnete, Legolas could have either 100% chance (mother's hair being blonde), 50% chance (mother's hair being brown but carrying the recessive blonde trait), or 0% chance (mother's hair is brown without carrying the recessive blonde trait). Then again, Legolas' mother could have had silver hair or, though much less likely, red hair. This is all rather complicated and is based on many assumptions.

Second, simply living in a community of brown haired people does not make you and your family have brown hair. Since we know that Thranduil had blonde hair, although he is Sindarin, the question of Thranduil's ancestry comes into this. Perhaps his mother or grandmother was of the kindred of the Vanyar, but an Avari who never went to Valinor.

And third:


-- The Great River, FOTR.

It was pitch-black at the time; Legolas could not even see what it was he shot, and his eyes are better than Frodo's. I don't think that the darkness there has anything to do with his hair.

But like I said, it's all up to our imagination.

funny how this went from who would win in a fight....to the colour of leggy's hair

Yeah.

But in fairness, I don't think we ever had a "Legolas' hair color" thread before, whereas we already had two fight threads.

^s-b, I couldn't agree more with everything you (or tolkien) said...

The queen has returned.shock

LOL, thanks. hug

I appreciate the title "queen", thank you so much ( ) though I certainly think lots of people deserve that title too. And "king" no less, which you deserve also.

This forum is loaded with amazing minds.

Aragorn IMO

Originally posted by shadowy_blue
Yeah.

But in fairness, I don't think we ever had a "Legolas' hair color" thread before, whereas we already had two fight threads. you know you're right....no one did ever come out with a thread on legolas' hair colourOriginally posted by shadowy_blue
LOL, thanks. hug

I appreciate the title "queen", thank you so much ( ) though I certainly think lots of people deserve that title too. And "king" no less, which you deserve also.

This forum is loaded with amazing minds. hey...i feel i should be queen if for a day.....

indeed you should fea!

well why would legolas say that fanghorn forest is so old that it almost makes him feel young again if he was young for an elf. because if he was young for an elf i doubt that he would feel old.

Aragorn would win, hands down, because he's had much more battle experience, and is a descendant of Warrior Kings.

But then again, these two would never fight, and this thread is made pointless....

Originally posted by JohnnyBloom
indeed you should fea! ....hehehehe

Originally posted by Dresta
well why would legolas say that fanghorn forest is so old that it almost makes him feel young again if he was young for an elf.
What he said was in the context of the Fangorn Forest. Do you know how old Fangorn was? It has been there since the First Age, so it really IS old, even compared to an Elf like Legolas who was born sometime during the late Second Age or early Third Age. That fact made him feel young.

Note that he's talking to Gimli and Aragorn, two people that he's considerably older in comparison to. He even called them "children". He's not talking to another Elf.

I never denied that he really is old compared to the other creatures that he's in company with, but he's not a several thousand years old. He's only been in existence for centuries.

Gandalf is much much much much much much much much older.

How about this: Legolas sucks, so Aragorn wins by default.....

Yeah, Gandalf is the oldest of course.

Originally posted by shadowy_blue
What he said was in the context of the Fangorn Forest. Do you know how old Fangorn was? It has been there since the First Age, so it really IS old, even compared to an Elf like Legolas who was born sometime during the late Second Age or early Third Age. That fact made him feel young.

Note that he's talking to Gimli and Aragorn, two people that he's considerably older in comparison to. He even called them "children". He's not talking to another Elf.

I never denied that he really is old compared to the other creatures that he's in company with, but he's not a several thousand years old. He's only been in existence for centuries.

you obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. you say that Legolas was born early third age or late seconde age which would make him about three thousand years old which is what i have been saying all along. there is no way he has only been in existance for centuries.

Originally posted by Murray
This is just a forum to see which one of the two "greatest" warriors in Middle-Earth would win in a battle against each other, even though they would never have one. Give the name and the reason why they would win.

We all love them both, but which one is the superior warrior.

My vote goes to. . . .

LEGOLAS!

He has more weaponry and more of a skill than Aragorn.
He's better with a bow, MUCH better, and he has 2 knives to circulate around and get anyone.



What do you think?

Legolas

Aragorn would have a chance if he could get pass one of Legolas' arrows but 10 to 1 that's not gonna happen.

Originally posted by Dresta
you obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Obviously? Absolutely? Yeah, you probably really know me very well, don't you, Dresta?

Read my other posts in this forum, please. No, not the random ones in Tig Party. The ones that are actually related to LotR. But I bet you wouldn't do that because you obviously know me better than I know myself. And yeah, I doubt you would care enough. It will only damage your argument.

I wasn't thinking very clear when I typed the whole "late Second Age or early Third Age" thing. And no, it doesn't make my argument flawed. Everybody messes up. Obviously, you didn't even read the link that I posted in my original post, so you're forcing your "4 or 5 thousand year old Legolas" in the minds of the people who know better. And obviously, you're so dead-on in "embarassing" me and making me look as if I'm in the wrong side of the tracks here by purposely ignoring what I said about Fangorn Forest, etc. and just focusing on the one thing that I messed up on.

I'd bet that majority of the people here know that Legolas is NOT a thousand years old. If you still want to believe otherwise, then go ahead and imagine him being 4 or 5 thousand years old in your own Legolas world, but forcing it here will be to no avail. We know our Legolas.

Yes, there is. As I've been suggesting, read the damn link.

If you still need more...

From this site.

Emphasis mine.



Nothing was proved official, but more than one clues are presented to support that Legolas is no more than a thousand years.

Personally, I can't see a 4 or 5 thousand year old Legolas there.

I feel like I'm trying so hard to support my case, and I wanna lighten up.

Dresta, you keep persisting that Legolas is very old, but just for fun, can you give us some reason in any form why you're dead set on believing such? I'm rather curious for a reason other than because he felt young compared to the Fangorn Forest (I already stated my reason why). And no, other than because he's immortal and an Elf either (being immortal and an Elf are not exclusive to being a several thousand years old).

The inkeeper is right - Tolkien never gives a birth date of Legolas:

''Legolas' date of birth is not known. He passed over the Sea in IV 120''

EDIT: Sorry! I didnt realise i was reading page one until i posted the message so its a bit late! lol (Just read the last message on the 1s page then u'll know waht i was replying to)

Originally posted by DanielLB
The inkeeper is right



Argument over.

Originally posted by The Inkeeper
Argument over.

The only ages i can find of Legolas are either from unrelaible sources and The Top Trumps cars which say he is 7000!

Legolas refers to his companions as children, and when he, Gimli, Aragorn, and Gandalf are approaching Meduseld he says that the leaves have fallen five hundred times in Mirkwood since the Rohirrim came out of the north. He also makes it sound as though he had lived through all five hundred years. Elsewhere he says he has watched many an acorn grow up and die as a hoary old oak tree. As Elves go Legolas is probably not ancient, but he seems to have been around for a while. And yet, Lorien is a mysterious place to him. Legolas has never visited there. It seems strange that he should not know anything about a land of Silvan Elves.

If he were barely more than 500 years old at the time of the War of the Ring, Legolas would have lived through several significant events. He would recall the coming of Smaug to Erebor, and the destruction of the kingdoms of Dale and Erebor. He would remember the Long Winter, and probably would have been one of the Elven lords defending Thranduil in the Battle of Five Armies. He thus would have known some dangers and hardships, and so was well able to care for himself. He seems to fight the Orcs well enough at Parth Galen and later at Helm's Deep to show he is an accomplished warrior. He threatens Eomer's life on Gimli's behalf with all the confidence of a veteran.

Since Tolkien doesn't mention Legolas in the scanty accounts of the War of the Last Alliance most people seem willing to accept that Legolas was probably born in the Third Age......

Legolas has no age...

Still, Gandalf is older

He would beat them both into the ground.

Well...Treebeard and Sauron are older than him and..Ilavatar is even older

Actually, Gandalf and Sauron will be the same age round about, and Treebeard is much younger than Gandy.


Just....Sauron and Treebeard were in middle earth before Gandalf, he just chilled out with his Posse in Valinor.

Oh, thats what i thought you meant...being in Middle-Earth I know that there the same age. I would've stayed in Valinor! lol

Not if you got ordered to go to middle earth and save the day you wouldn't

I suppose It would be cool to go to Middle-Earth...you might get bored in such a peaceful place

Yeah, i would much rather go to war-strewn lands of pain and hurt than peaceful bliss

So much more interesting

Although your likely to die

Dangers my middle name

LOL, that would make him even older than Elrond who was born in the First Age.

I bet he does. We just don't know.

But I know what you mean. We have some clues to safely rule out a "several thousand year old Legolas" though.

And nice post. Those are some excerpts from the article that I posted a link about, right? It gives me pleasure to know that some people still take the time to read that kinda stuff.

Now if some people could only be bothered to do the same...

Originally posted by shadowy_blue
I bet he does. We just don't know.

But I know what you mean. We have some clues to safely rule out a "several thousand year old Legolas" though.

And nice post. Those are some excerpts from the article that I posted a link about, right? It gives me pleasure to know that some people still take the time to read that kinda stuff.

Now if some people could only be bothered to do the same...

there is no way that Legolas would have felt old if he was very young for an elf. e.g under 1000 years old.

Originally posted by The Inkeeper
Actually, Gandalf and Sauron will be the same age round about, and Treebeard is much younger than Gandy.


Just....Sauron and Treebeard were in middle earth before Gandalf, he just chilled out with his Posse in Valinor.

Gandalf came to middles earth at the beggining of the Third Age didn't he and are there any hints to tell us how old he actually is.

Originally posted by shadowy_blue
LOL, that would make him even older than Elrond who was born in the First Age.
It would probably make him older than his own father.

And... if he was more than 7,000 years old, the things he is named after, green leaves, wouldn't even have existed yet in Middle-earth

Originally posted by Dresta
there is no way that Legolas would have felt old if he was very young for an elf. e.g under 1000 years old.
Tell me where he said that "he felt old", as old as the other Elves. Personally, I never saw it anywhere. All I saw was the line, "this forest is old, very old. So old that I almost feel young again."

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

You know why? Because HE WAS TALKING TO ARAGORN AND GIMLI. Two creatures that are considerably younger than him. Personally, I couldn't see any other Elves in the company that he could have been comparing his age to. Yes, he's the oldest in the company next to Gandalf, but it's only in the CONTEXT of the FELLOWSHIP. Also, as I've been saying, he was talking about the Fangorn Forest which was made even before the Elves, Dwarves and pretty much everything else in Middle-earth have been awaken. Meaning, the fact that being in Fangorn made him feel young doesn't necessarily mean that he's as old as every other Elves. It's because EVERYONE, maybe except the Istari, would feel young in that freakin' forest.

Stop forcing your opinion to everyone without even giving us any reasons why you feel that Legolas MUST be a several thousand years old, other than that one sentence in the book and the fact that he's immortal. You didn't even acknowledge all the stuff that DanielLB and I have bothered to post here.

Are you even planning to support your claim? Or are you just going to keep on insisting that Legolas is 4 or 5 thousand years old just because you want him to be? Are you going to fully ignore all the clues that state otherwise? Are you going to do that until the world dies? Because, sorry...I don't think anyone would be interested in discussing this with you forever. This will be my last post regarding Legolas' age, and if you still don't get the point, then I'm very sorry. Really, I am.



Gandalf was incarnated to Middle-earth at the beginning of the Third Age, but he, along with Saruman and Sauron have been Maiar since the beginning of the world. Meaning, they're older than Treebeard and every non-Ainur.

Originally posted by Dresta
Gandalf came to middles earth at the beggining of the Third Age didn't he and are there any hints to tell us how old he actually is.


He has been around since before the world was made. No way does Legolas even come close to him.

Legolas has a big ego, calling people children when he isnt even the oldest in the fellowship, i would dearly love to exrete my waste into his food supply.

Originally posted by The Inkeeper
He has been around since before the world was made. No way does Legolas even come close to him.


for sure but i didn't say he was nearly as old as Gandalf. it's also Legolas's manner that makes me beleive he is not that young for an elf. although there is no way to prove this arguement either way it should end now.

There is alot more to suggest me, Exa and Shad are right


Mostly because Exa and Shad say it is so.



But ok, end the argument.

you had to make that last comment didn't you.

Yes, your new so you havent yet realised that i always get the last word


Its what i pride myself on.

i hate it when people do that

And I hate it when people pop up suddenly and conveniently act as if nobody else in the forum has read the book and thus know nothing of what they're talking about.

shadowy blue you don't know that your're right so shut your mouth

Originally posted by Dresta
shadowy blue you don't know that your're right so shut your mouth

Where's Smod to defend his girl's honour?

Shadowy_Blue, unlike you, Dresta, has actually given some context to her theory and her belief.

You seem to just blindly believe she's wrong.

Originally posted by Dresta
shadowy blue you don't know that your're right so shut your mouth
You don't know that you're right either so you could have shut your own mouth A LOOOOOONG time ago, since you never even bothered to look for some evidences to support your claim.

Shut my mouth? I won't. And not a guy like you can make me.

Originally posted by Dresta
shadowy blue you don't know that your're right so shut your mouth dude....to be fair - the debate so far has been good and refreshing since we've not had one since the summer of last year

but to end it in such a manner is rather sophomoric and unnecessary, truth be told i've enjoyed both sides of view points...

we can all agree to disagree, but let us not stoop to such base levels as that

well said Fea!!

Originally posted by Dresta
actually legolas is something like 4 or 5 thousand years old and the son of the king of mirkwood.

2931, just to be exact

Originally posted by Murray
2931, just to be exact
Originally posted by Exabyte
As for the age, no, Tolkien never officially stated how old Legolas was. The movie makers defined his year of birth as 87 TA as Bloom mentioned in an interview; this would make him 2931 years old during the War of the Ring. This number is now widely accepted as 'true' among movie fans although it's pure fanfiction.

Are you serious with this question? Aragorn would wipe the floor with Legolas. Aragorn was probally the 3 best fighter in the 3rd age. Glorfindel being first, elladen and elohir being second, and Aragorn 3rd. I mean this question is insane, a wood elf vs a Dunedain raised by a Noldor elf. Aragorn Massacres Legolas.

Originally posted by Dresta
i hate it when people do that

Shame, but i will still get the last word

Thats what i do baby.

My comment was probably unnecessary, in such a way that your "you had to make that last comment, didn't you" (even though I'm sure that Chris was only trying to easen up things here and restore the peace) comment was unnecessary, but nowhere in my post did I say I was right. So it was rather funny when you suddenly started to put words into my mouth implying that I ever claimed that I was. I have no idea where you even got that from the one sentence post I made. I was just stating my opinion regarding some of the "I've-read-the-book-and-I-bet-you-didn't-so-you-must-have-no-idea-what-you're-talking-about" attitude of some of the newly pop up members here. (in case you're wondering, almost all of them are gone.) Now, don't you try to put words into my mouth again and accuse me of ever saying that you should leave too. I never said that. I'm just assuming you might imply such.

Just to clarify, I never believed you one bit when you said that Legolas must be 4 or 5 thousand years old, or for this matter, 2 to 3 thousand (I still don't believe it though), so I politely tried to present the more plausible possibility by posting a link that explains everything. Then you kept insisting that Legolas must be old because he felt young in Fangorn Forest, then again, I tried to explain why that must have been. Then you started being all arrogant and rude implying that I obviously have absolutely no idea of what I was talking about because I messed up with one of my info. Then I started to post more textual clues, and challenged you to present any of yours, which you never did.

Moreover, might I say that you've been arrogant and insistent from the get go, acting as if a member such as The Inkeeper who is (or was) an avid LotR fan wouldn't know that Legolas is immortal, not to mention that you were almost questioning his knowledge at just about anything. (Seriously, even a movie fan who hasn't read the book would know that Elves are immortal. )

I know that I'm not right, and I never claimed to be, because we have no way of knowing what Legolas' exact age is. If I ever sounded rude or arrogant in any of my posts, it was a reaction to YOUR own attitude and the implications of your actions. If you got bugged by The Inkeeper's rubbing in of the fact that you're new, I'd bet that he did that because he's kinda annoyed at you too (correct me Chris if I'm wrong). We're not always rude here, in case you're wondering.

In short, I didn't initially mean to be rude towards anyone here. It's not like at the first sight of this thread, I immediately thought, "Hey, I'll post here, then crap on Dresta later!"



I'm generally nice, but I can be a hell of an assh0le if provoked.

I just think your a hell of an ******* in general

Nah im just kidding darlin'.


But yet again, i need to remind you all, i have the last word

Originally posted by shadowy_blue
My comment was probably unnecessary, in such a way that your "you had to make that last comment, didn't you" (even though I'm sure that Chris was only trying to easen up things here and restore the peace) comment was unnecessary, but nowhere in my post did I say I was right. So it was rather funny when you suddenly started to put words into my mouth implying that I ever claimed that I was. I have no idea where you even got that from the one sentence post I made. I was just stating my opinion regarding some of the "I've-read-the-book-and-I-bet-you-didn't-so-you-must-have-no-idea-what-you're-talking-about" attitude of some of the newly pop up members here. (in case you're wondering, almost all of them are gone.) Now, don't you try to put words into my mouth again and accuse me of ever saying that you should leave too. I never said that. I'm just assuming you might imply such.

Just to clarify, I never believed you one bit when you said that Legolas must be 4 or 5 thousand years old, or for this matter, 2 to 3 thousand (I still don't believe it though), so I politely tried to present the more plausible possibility by posting a link that explains everything. Then you kept insisting that Legolas must be old because he felt young in Fangorn Forest, then again, I tried to explain why that must have been. Then you started being all arrogant and rude implying that I obviously have absolutely no idea of what I was talking about because I messed up with one of my info. Then I started to post more textual clues, and challenged you to present any of yours, which you never did.

Moreover, might I say that you've been arrogant and insistent from the get go, acting as if a member such as The Inkeeper who is (or was) an avid LotR fan wouldn't know that Legolas is immortal, not to mention that you were almost questioning his knowledge at just about anything. (Seriously, even a movie fan who hasn't read the book would know that Elves are immortal. )

I know that I'm not right, and I never claimed to be, because we have no way of knowing what Legolas' exact age is. If I ever sounded rude or arrogant in any of my posts, it was a reaction to YOUR own attitude and the implications of your actions. If you got bugged by The Inkeeper's rubbing in of the fact that you're new, I'd bet that he did that because he's kinda annoyed at you too (correct me Chris if I'm wrong). We're not always rude here, in case you're wondering.

In short, I didn't initially mean to be rude towards anyone here. It's not like at the first sight of this thread, I immediately thought, "Hey, I'll post here, then crap on Dresta later!"



I'm generally nice, but I can be a hell of an assh0le if provoked.


ok sorry if i annoyed you

*is dissappointed that she missed a debate*

Originally posted by Dresta
ok sorry if i annoyed you
Wow, this is ending up more angelic than I ever expected. No blood.

LOL, j/k

It's OK. And re-reading my post...damn, I can't believe I wrote all those!

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Anyway, I'm sorry too if I was very rude or if I hurt you in anyway.

*let's Chris have the last word*

Originally posted by shadowy_blue
My comment was probably unnecessary, in such a way that your "you had to make that last comment, didn't you" (even though I'm sure that Chris was only trying to easen up things here and restore the peace) comment was unnecessary, but nowhere in my post did I say I was right. So it was rather funny when you suddenly started to put words into my mouth implying that I ever claimed that I was. I have no idea where you even got that from the one sentence post I made. I was just stating my opinion regarding some of the "I've-read-the-book-and-I-bet-you-didn't-so-you-must-have-no-idea-what-you're-talking-about" attitude of some of the newly pop up members here. (in case you're wondering, almost all of them are gone.) Now, don't you try to put words into my mouth again and accuse me of ever saying that you should leave too. I never said that. I'm just assuming you might imply such.

Just to clarify, I never believed you one bit when you said that Legolas must be 4 or 5 thousand years old, or for this matter, 2 to 3 thousand (I still don't believe it though), so I politely tried to present the more plausible possibility by posting a link that explains everything. Then you kept insisting that Legolas must be old because he felt young in Fangorn Forest, then again, I tried to explain why that must have been. Then you started being all arrogant and rude implying that I obviously have absolutely no idea of what I was talking about because I messed up with one of my info. Then I started to post more textual clues, and challenged you to present any of yours, which you never did.

Moreover, might I say that you've been arrogant and insistent from the get go, acting as if a member such as The Inkeeper who is (or was) an avid LotR fan wouldn't know that Legolas is immortal, not to mention that you were almost questioning his knowledge at just about anything. (Seriously, even a movie fan who hasn't read the book would know that Elves are immortal. )

I know that I'm not right, and I never claimed to be, because we have no way of knowing what Legolas' exact age is. If I ever sounded rude or arrogant in any of my posts, it was a reaction to YOUR own attitude and the implications of your actions. If you got bugged by The Inkeeper's rubbing in of the fact that you're new, I'd bet that he did that because he's kinda annoyed at you too (correct me Chris if I'm wrong). We're not always rude here, in case you're wondering.

In short, I didn't initially mean to be rude towards anyone here. It's not like at the first sight of this thread, I immediately thought, "Hey, I'll post here, then crap on Dresta later!"



I'm generally nice, but I can be a hell of an assh0le if provoked. and i'm sure a certain someone loves that *ehem* hole....

okay that was disgusting....i hate myself

Fea *rolls eyes in disgust*

get your mind out of the gutter my friend

OMG, Fea...

OK
Can please stop argueing and get back to the point of the forum.
I hate it when people fight on forums, even though I have a guilty charge. LOL

Legolas or Aragorn?

The point is to argue

most definatly...good debates are hard to come by nowadays

But it's over now.

...I think.

Darn. Too late to post an opinion.

Peace be with everyone.

It looks that way rar

Originally posted by Elessea
most definatly...good debates are hard to come by nowadays

Now that I think about it. . . . . .

You've got a pretty damn good point!

Argue Away!!!

i think this argument is good and worn out now...so- until the next time

yeah - i was beginning to think that!!

Without a bow leagolas aint got nothin hes just a pricy little elf who cant even talk trask let alone back it up, Strider/Aragorn would so kick the piss outta he could just pull legolases ear and hed give (legolas is sitll cool) Go aragorn go go go u

Aragorn

yep Son of Boromir is right.

Legolas vs aragorn. hmph.....

depends how far apart from each other,

10 ft=legolas

even further=legolas

In melee, 70% chance aragorn would kill lego, 20% legolas, and prolly 10% draw, in melee, though.

i think that ur mom would win and ur dad would get screwed by legolas

warlock of wow, ur are one of the biggest newbd i have ever seen.

Aragorn would sooooo win!

i so go for Legolas first of all cause he is the best with the bow and arrow and he is HOTT!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by elfprincess101
i so go for Legolas first of all cause he is the best with the bow and arrow and he is HOTT!!!!!!!!!

If they would be fighting using bow would not be right.
If two warriors fight they dont shoot the other right away.
That would be... kinda... unfair.
I like them both really much. Legolas is a great person.
But Aragorn is the one that I would love to marry...

But well... back to the fight....

Legolas is fast and light and he got 2 pretty knifes.
Aragorn is bigger and stronger then elf and his sword is...
well it's long and comes down with power.
So I would say if Aragorn catches Legolas... elf would lose.
But there's also that they know each other well and they have been fighting side-by-side long time. They prob. can "read" each others well.
Or what say you?

Lady Jhennya R.

I like Legolas and Aragorn equally but Legolas is known for killing from a distance with his deadly precision. If Aragorn and Legolas fought close range I think Aragorn would overpower him with his strength and his heart. He has lots of heart, which was proven in every book and every movie. For example, in Helm's Deep when everyone had lost hope, even Legolas(they should be scared-Legolas), it was Aragorn's heart that was unwavering. When Aragorn is determined I don't think anything can stop him, not magic, blade, or arrow.

That's so right Some Black Guy!

Just wanted to send this message lol...

Originally posted by Lady Jhennya
That's so right Some Black Guy!

Just wanted to send this message lol...



Thanx

This is easy!

If Aragorn tried to lay a hand on Legolas, he would

"die before your stroke fell!"

one-nil to Legolas on this occasion + he can do amazing stunts like skating down oliphant trunks and swinging up onto horses from one side to the other. This would not be much of a contest.

Aragorn wins, he is possibly the greatest man to ever walk middle earth. And he was the 3rd greatest warrior of the 3rd age.

1st Glorfindel
2nd Elrohir and Elladen
3rd Aragorn

Close range battle: Aragon
If they had a lot of room or a great distance to travel: Legolas

HMMM it's a hard question they're both skilled warriors but this i know Aragorn will lose (i mean no disrespect to Aragorn since i am a fan but Legolas would surely win *sniff* *inwardly weeps for aragorn* *sniff*

I would agree with everyone in saying that Legolas is more skilled at using the bow and arrow. Aragorn was better on a horse and was better in the use of a sword. So I would say each was skilled in whatever form of fighting that suited them.

warzorro

hmm guys. remember that aragorn is a ranger, he knows how to camouflage in a forest. he is also good with a bow.sword.and horse.he owns. aragorn is the best fighter in middle earth. he is the king of men

Well, talking about the age, Legolas I mean, tolkien made to of them, and what would an elven lord from Gondolin be doing in Mirkwood, there are to elf Legolases, one was a noldor, the other thranduil's Son, also note that Thranduil is not one of the High elves. So my verdict would be that Legolas is a young elf, a second Legolas. Just because Tolkien didn't explain him as he did with Glorfindel, does not mean that It's the same elf.

I can't much get myself to choose as the chosen would emerge victor, and the other would die , no one can kill either of them now can they.