The Bridge of Khazad-dum

[Saulotus]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 209</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: The Bridge of Khazad-dum

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> posted points by Mithadan
'...does not say Gundabad only and footnote 30 clearly implies Dwarvish presence in the Moria area...'

'...means no westward trade heightening the need for eastward trade...'
'...retreated leaving eastward trade more or less open but still no one to the West...'

'...there is no textual evidence that the dwarves used the lightshafts to grow crops...'<hr></blockquote>

Concerning Gundabad and environs:
The section references Gundabad and the early establishment of Moria in the First Age. I have never disputed that trade existed before Moria was closed, only its existance AFTER its closure.
Footnote 30 (as you point out) is applied to the Second Age, and again relates to BEFORE its closure.

Concerning eastward trade:
The Men of Anduin are ravaged by Easterlings and Orcs.
{QUOTE]J.R.R. Tolkien Of Dwarves and Men
'The Men of the Alliance were involved in war not only with Orks but with alien Men of evil sort. For Sauron had acquired dominion over many savage tribes in the East (of old corrupted by Morgoth), and he now urged them to seek land and booty in the West. When the storm passed , the Men of the old Alliance were diminished and scattered, and those that lingered...' (etc. as quoted previously)[/quote]

Concerning Light shafts and (stated) great windows:
Absolutely, but it is taken in context of known information and was simply a rebuttal to the idea presented that it was 'impossible' to grow food in Moria. The stretch wasn't nearly as great as imagined (and within text concerning Morias' lighting) when compared to other ideas presented (and actually my only speculation in the area presented) without even examining possibilities on unscalable High Elevation gardens (or animal compounds) or other such speculative ideas which wander beyond text.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> By Mithadan
Nice discussion, good points all around.<hr></blockquote>
I may seem to be harsher than I am in this discussion, and have no problem with discussions of speculation of this nature, but I do when it alters text (and disregards it in some cases) in order to make a point.
'Kirk'ism isn't a quality I ascribe to in discussions.

But agreed, a nice discussion.
So an agreement to disagree seems best.

</p>