An article written for the AEthelmearc Gazette
On the nature of Dragons
by Caleb Reynolds
I wish to take this time and space to talk about a misconception of dragons. More specifically Northern European dragons (Draco europa septentrionalis). I wish to write about our misconception of what dragons ate and how they changed their local environment to suit their diet.
 |
| Figure 1 |
To start with, let us speak about the wide spread destruction of the land that was often blamed on dragons. We read in the manuscripts that dragons routinely burned down the forests surrounding their lairs; please refer to Tolkien's "Desolation of Smaug" for a modern visual of this. We do have to ask why a dragon would wreck their environment. Most warm-blooded animals require around 5 to 25% of their body weight in food, per day, to maintain function [various sources] so why would a dragon destroy an ecosystem, and the animals that live in it? Burning down an entire medieval forest would remove the habitat of hundreds of species of plants, animals, and birds. The ash produced could be carried into nearby lakes, rivers, and streams and wreck havoc upon fish populations, further stressing the food chain.
There are a couple of theories for this. The first is the nature of the dragon, itself. While Indian dragons are small enough to live in the shade of peridens trees, feasting on doves, Northern European dragons were far too large to move through a forest as adults. The dragon in "Beowulf" is described as over 50 feet long. [se wees fiftiges fotgemearces I lang on legere; 'in length it was fifty foot-paces as it lay' (lines 3042-3)] The dragon form of Fafnir, that Siguard slew, was described as "huge and evil" and gouged a track in the ground with its bulk [Fafnir's huge size, for example, although not described directly, is implied by the excessively large track which was hollowed out by his body as he crawled. Similarly, the dragon fought by Fridlevus hollowed down the ground to the rock forming a bank of earth on either side of his body as it dragged itself along.- THE NATURE OF BEOWULF'S DRAGON - HOWARD SHILTON]. The Lindworm that Ragnar Loðbrók fought according to Saxo Grammaticus, was large enough to encircle the bower of Þóra Borgarhjǫrtr. [Possibly 50 feet in diameter].
We could, therefore, make the assumption that a dragon would want to burn down a forest so that it could hunt in the area around it's lair, without getting stuck between trees. Unfortunately, we would have to ask what would the dragon hunt, if the forest is removed. While wolves have been observed to hunt and live quite comfortably on field mice in the Northern Canadian provinces, [Farley Mowat, Canada’s Dominion Wildlife Service] it might be unreasonable to think that a dragon, the size of a city bus, would be able to find, catch, and eat enough small rodents to survive, let alone generate enough energy to power the dragon's fire.
 |
| Figure 2 |
Some theorize that dragons burn down forests to create more grasslands, which would be more beneficial to large herbivores, such as deer, elk, moose, and the aurochs which used to roam Europe. But, there is no guarantee that herds of large animals would move into the area of desolation. Also, the conversion of forest to grassland cannot happen overnight. Forty years after the eruption of Mount St. Helens, scientists reported that some grass and flowers had started to grow back. The Mount St. Helens Science and Learning Center surveyed 1,750 individual deer and elk in 2024: far lower than the tens of thousands that lived in the Volcano's shadow prior to the eruption. [200 elk were reported as starving to death in the winter of 1998 due to the dearth of forage]. So, if dragons burn down a forest to increase the population of large prey animals, it doesn't appear likely that this would be a good, short term solution.
 |
Figure 3
|
 |
| Figure 4 |
Humans could move into the area, with their cattle, sheep and goat, but their herds would find the same lack of fodder that wild animals would find. Plus humans might not want to get near the lair of a fire breathing dragon with their flammable houses and people. So, what else could dragons be doing with their fire and destruction?
Why do we assume that dragons live entirely off of meat? We do have plenty of evidence that dragons ate the occasional person or cow, but I was unable to find any period sources stating that dragons went on eating frenzy, eating entire herds, flocks, or villages. What if our assumptions of dragons are wrong. What if dragons weren't warm-blooded? Let us discuss the possibility of dragons being cold blooded.
 |
| Figure 5 |
1) While many warm-blooded animals rely on fat, blubber, fur, or feathers to retain body heat, cold-blooded animals don't, relying on the sun or the environment to gather energy to maintain body heat. Dragons are well known for having scales and not fur or feathers.
2) Many cold-blooded animals have evolved to go into what is known as torpor to conserve energy when cold; slowing down their bodies so that they can conserve more energy from the food that they eat. Many reptiles have been observed to enter torpor after feeding in order to maximize the energy gained from their food for body size growth and other bodily processes. Dragons are well known for sleeping after feeding.
3) Cold environments, generally, force evolutionary changes on animals to become larger in size to maximize the surface area to body mass ratio. This allows more skin to be available to absorb sunlight, and thus stay warmer. We can see this in the size difference between not only the polar bear and the black bear, but in dragons described in medieval and classical literature. While Northern European dragons are described as large in size, Mediterranean, Indian, and Middle Eastern dragons are described as much smaller in size: city bus size vs horse size. [Asian dragons might be a completely different genus to the European dragons, but that will have to wait for their own article.]
In addition, we must re-examine the diet of Northern European dragon. While we do have descriptions of these dragons eating people and livestock, we, again, do not have any mention in the literature of the constant hunting practices of a large predator that would need to eat two or three cows per day. Or a dozen humans each and every day. Perhaps dragons only did this for nutrition that could not be found in their regular diet. In the same way cats will eat grass, on occasion, dragons might have turn to meat for certain vitamins, minerals, or proteins not found in their normal diet.
 |
| Figure 6 |
What was their normal diet? I propose that dragons ate trees. And not just any trees. Ones that would provide the dragons with the maximum nutrition per gram. Large, hard wood trees. Hear me out. If dragons ate trees, what would be the only reason why they would burn down entire forests? It is because there are certain species of trees that require the heat of a forest fire for their seeds to open up and sprout. Trees such as the redwood, sequoia, aspen, core oak and Scots pine. The fire would not only allow these species to reproduce, but would clear out other trees and plants that would compete with the tree preferred by the dragons. While these species of trees are slow growing, they are long lived and if the dragons were cold-blooded, they would not need to consume an entire tree everyday. They would eat until they were full and then sleep it off. Over the course of several decades, the new growth would replace the older trees that had been feasted upon in prior years.
 |
| Figure 7 |
I further propose that the Northern European dragon died off due to a combination of predation from knights and heroes as well as the deforestation of these old growth trees by the expanding human population during the renaissance due to ship building and glass and steel production.
 |
| Figure 8 |
In the 17th Century poem "The Dragon of Wantley" we read:
Some say he ate up trees,
And that the forests sure he would
Devour up by degrees:
For houses and churches were
to him geese and chickens
He ate all, and left none behind,
but some stones, dear Jack,
that he could not crack,
Which on the hills you will find.
[quoted from Thomas Percy’s "Reliques of Ancient Poetry" 1765]
We can also suppose that Northern European dragons evolved the ability to breathe fire to assist them with dealing with the cold weather. Recounts of dragons from warmer climates do not mention fire, but poison instead, which might be related to the diet of those species of dragon.
"Then a great dragon began to ravage the country-side with fire and alone did a single knight take arms against it, and in the end, was the victor. All night long did the raging flames swept o’er the land and the water, and all withered and burned at it’s touch. The dragon had burned up the people’s homes and fields. The city did burn as likewise did the ships and the water-skirted land was devastated. Not ‘til the touch of dawn did the dragon end it’s destruction and retreat to its lair. Great faith did it have in the safety of its hiding place, but it’s faith was to be futile." [Geoffrey Of Cambria, "The History of Britain" 1455]
Perhaps the tree diet of the Northern dragon produced suitable by-products (turpentine, sap, etc), that would allow the dragon to produce fire on demand, which would not only allow the dragon to control its environment, but to keep itself warm in the coldest of winters. Perhaps animal protein was needed for the necessary chemical materials to produce the flames. Alas, the great dragons of Northern Europe are all gone and we are unable to examine one to discover their biological chemical factories.
One last point I wish to make. That is of the nature of why dragons sought out princesses but didn't eat them right away. Certainly there are plenty of stories describing princesses, and other young, female members of nobility, being sacrificed to dragons, and other monsters, or captured directly by the monster, e.g.: Andromeda, Hesione, Elizabeth the Fair, Iseult, Þóra Borgarhjǫrtr. While the princesses were in mortal danger, there are scant stories of the dragons, in those stories, actually eating the "fair maid". But plenty of these stories do tell of one hero and/or knight after another falling to the dragon before a mighty and/or cunning warrior shows up to kill the beast. Why are there so many of these stories if not to hint of the motivation of the dragon.
I believe that the dragons were not interested in eating the princess; after all, the natural habitat of a princess is far away from old growth forests. If the dragon needed to eat a human, there would be closer and easier targets to hunt. No, I believe that the dragons were capturing princesses to use as bait. You see, I propose that dragons needed gastroliths in order to help break down the cellulose material of the hard wood that made up their diets. While rocks could have been swallowed, in the same way that birds, crocodiles, alligators and other animals are known to do, metal might have been preferable, and armor, with it's sharp edges, might have been a better choice to break apart the wood that the dragon would not have been able to chew with the teeth that were depicted in medieval manuscripts.
At some point in human history, metal armor was invented and dragons, long of life and cunning in thought, [various sources] discovered that eating one of these humans wearing metal armor made their digestion easier. So dragons evolved the practice of capturing the occasional princess in order to lure a metal-clad knight to come save the woman. The higher ranking princess, the higher ranking knight which meant more and better armor. The dragon would then eat the knight, and the armor, and gain the superior "gizzard stones". Eventually, the metal armor would pass through the digestion tract of the dragon to be deposited in the lair of the beast, which would explain why armor and weapons were often described as being found in the dragon's lair after it had been killed.
With proper feeding, the princess could be used for multiple attempts as bait, and if she died, then the dragon could simply eat the princess and get another one if more armor was needed. We have no way to determine how long the metal would last in the dragon's gullet, but with the small percentage of noble women in Europe, and the slow metabolism of the cold-blooded dragon, we can assume that the dragon would not have to go through more than one princess every few years, thus preventing the over hunting of young, female members of royalty.
 |
| Figure 9 |
