-2

In the LOTR movies, Gandalf remarks that Bilbo's adventures ended 60 years before his eleventyfirst birthday.

Aragorn tells Eowyn that he is 87, so would that place him at 27 during the events of The Hobbit?

marked as duplicate by user8719 Apr 1 '15 at 7:36

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

3

No, your math is a bit off, but it's mostly the movie's fault. According to the information from the various novels/appendices, etc:

  • Bilbo was born in TA 2890
  • Aragorn was born in TA 2931
  • Bilbo finds the One Ring in 2941 - Aragorn is 10.
  • Bilbo turns 111 in 3001 - Aragorn is 70
  • Aragorn meets Eowyn in early 3019 - Aragorn is 87.

The problem here is that the plot in the novels, and the movies, skips pretty quickly from Bilbo's birthday party to Frodo leaving the Shire. However, in the novels it's made clear that a lot of time has passed between those two events, while the movies mostly gloss over that.

That's not to say that the movies are different; keep in mind everything that happened off-screen between those two events. Galdalf travelled across Middle-earth looking for information about the One Ring, and he and Aragorn even tracked down Gollum after Sauron captured and tortured him. That leaves an 18-year-gap gap that's only hinted at in the movies, but does make the Aragorn's age match up correctly at the various points.

  • 1
    I think the confusion really comes from the end of the last Hobbit movie where Thranduil tells Legolas to seek out Strider - who is already venturing with the rangers (now, either rangers start early, or someone got their maths a bit wrong writing the script) – HorusKol Apr 1 '15 at 1:51
  • Quite the contrary. There's no confusion; the 17-years gap indeed does not exist, which makes Aragorn an 25-ish year old ranger at the time of the events of the Battle of the Five Armies. – Alfredo Hernández Apr 1 '15 at 6:34
  • It's a 17 year gap. Also the film ignores the fact that 22 September is also Frodo's birthday - and he comes of age and his inheritance. Since The Scouring of the Shire and the original sale of Bag End to the S.B's was left out that didn't matter so much. And yes the films are different: even Shadowfax couldn't have travelled all the way to Minas Tirith so quickly (to be fair they compressed the distance but still). And they don't have him return often for a while then gone for years only to reveal bad news. And the list goes on. They compressed a lot e.g. omitting the Battle of Dagorlad. – Pryftan Jan 2 '18 at 19:52
  • And incidentally it's entirely the fault of the film! (the maths being off, I mean) – Pryftan Jan 2 '18 at 19:53
1

If he did say that, it was a movie change. In the books Aragorn was 10 when Bilbo went on his adventure

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.