Why destroy Laketown's bridge?

[Sauron the White]

In THE HOBBIT, in the chapter Fire and Water, the people of Laketown are alerted to the coming of Smaug. They begin preparing for him and one of the things they do is throw down and destroy the bridge to the land?

Why would they do this? Smaug flies. He does not need a bridge to walk across the way some land based invaders would need it. Are not the people of Laketown cutting of their fastest way of their own retreat? Does Smaug need the bridge to land upon? If so there would be other areas of Laketown suitable for that purpose including some of the larger buildings. And then it brings up the questions of size regarding both the dragon and the bridge. In a pre Industrial society, how does a group of people quickly destroy a large bridge in what JRRT describes as "little time".

Could somebody explain this?

[alatar]

Maybe they were prepared for any type of land invader, and so designed the bridge to be 'thrown down' easily. This would be a nice security device.

And how much did they know of Smaug? From the histories that they may have learned from the elves, removing the bridge as a means of access may just have been prudent, as would have been helpful at Nargothrond when Glaurung came calling.

Was Smaug more birdlike or more like a helicopter? What I mean is that I don't see the old worm perching on the weather vane of the tallest building in Laketown. He may have needed some space to land, and that space may not have been available. Would he have come down anywhere, unsure whether the structure would hold him, not knowing if he were going to soon test his swimming skills?

Just some thoughts.

[Sauron the White]

Regarding him needing space to land. I tend to agree. However, there were some sizable buildings in Laketown and - while not on the weather vane - the roof area would probably be amply suited to his landing or at least hopping onto and quickly off again. But even if that were not the case, any water based town has docks for the loading and unloading of supplies. Every dock area I have seen is at least as wide as a bridge. So perhaps Smaug could have landed there. Of course, all this brings up the question of the size of Smaug, his comparison to the landing abilities of a plane versus a helicopter, and the technology necessary to quickly destroy a bridge.

JRRT does the bridge destruction almost as a throw away passing phrase without any detail or explaination. Its very confusing.

I just do not get the necessity of destroying a bridge to stop a dragon who is flying at you.

[skip spence]

Now, it was many years since I read The Hobbit (too many) but destroying the bridge makes a lot of sense to me. In fact, the only reason they built the town on the lake and not next to it was because of the dragon. Although the inhabitants of lake town didn't have any experience of dragons themselves, their not-so distant ancestors did and it was dire, as Smaug brought complete ruin to Dale.

Of course, had Smaug been able to land in the middle of Lake Town, destroying the bridge would've made no sense, as you pointed out. We'll have to assume he couldn't. I guess there would've been too many rooftops, towers, canals and such, for him to make a safe landing. Furthermore, Smaug would've been afraid to get wet and cool down, which would've made him less potent. If he tried to land on a rooftop it might have collapsed, causing him to plunge into the water. In fact, since Lake Town was built as it were in order to offer protection against Smaug, the constructors would have made sure there wasn't any place for him to land safely.

And if we assume Smaug couldn't land on Lake Town, it's clear why destroying the bridge makes sense. Had he been able to land on the shore and cross the bridge on foot, he would have smashed the town to smithereens and killed everyone foolish enough to defend it without any doubt. A known fact about dragons is their soft belly, and Bard was able to slay Smaug only because the arrow came from underneath. With his belly firmly on the ground, a great drake like Smaug is nearly invincible, and the defenders of Lake Town would stand no chance had he been able to cross the bridge.

[Sauron the White]

Of course, had Smaug been able to land in the middle of Lake Town, destroying the bridge would've made no sense, as you pointed out. We'll have to assume he couldn't.

That assumption is convenient and contrary to how I read the story. Laketown brings in lots of goods by boat. They have dock areas which would be suitable for any such landing. You discount the idea of landing on roofs - something which I do not, even if it is just to help him slow down and hop off.

If Laketown is that crowded with small structures that there is no place to land, how would Smaug get around the town while on the ground anyways?

What purpose would there be for him to actually walk across that bridge?

Again, why destroy the bridge? To stop Smaug? How does that stop him? What it does do is cut off the quickest route of escape of the town residents and that does not seem very bright.

Why does a creature who can fly and attack from the air need with a land bridge? It simply makes no sense that I can see.

I agree that if a land based army was marching on your town, then you may want to cut yourself off from them in that fashion. But the attack was clearly by air and the people of Laketown knew that he was coming by air.

[skip spence]

^My point is simple really:

The inhabitants wouldn't have wasted their time destroying the bridge if they thought Smaug could land on Lake Town. And they were right: he could not, or at least did not.

[Sauron the White]

There is a far more obvious point.
Why would Smaug need to land at all?
He has no use for that bridge.
What is the point of destroying a bridge to the land if the dragon Smaug does not need to use that bridge?

And you saw they would not have wasted their time. Fact is they had precious little time according to the author. How fast can they destroy a bridge? Are we to believe that a pre industrial people can destroy a large bridge in the time it takes a dragon, already in sight, to fly to them?

[alatar]

That assumption is convenient and contrary to how I read the story. Laketown brings in lots of goods by boat. They have dock areas which would be suitable for any such landing.
These docks received floating barrels and surely some boats, but ships? It's a lake, not a sea port. Regardless, I'm not sure how comfortable Smaug would be landing on something of unproven girth so near the water.

You discount the idea of landing on roofs - something which I do not, even if it is just to help him slow down and hop off.
Could he land on a stick roof thatched with straw? I'm not sure of the structures of Laketown, nor know the weight of Smaug to perform an adequate experiment.

We do know that Smaug rarely ran great distances, and so don't have to discuss worm glycogen levels...;)

If Laketown is that crowded with small structures that there is no place to land, how would Smaug get around the town while on the ground anyways?
People were responding in fear, plus if he could get into the city on the ground, he may have had more opportunity to eat them than just cook them.

What purpose would there be for him to actually walk across that bridge?

Again, why destroy the bridge? To stop Smaug? How does that stop him? What it does do is cut off the quickest route of escape of the town residents and that does not seem very bright.
There may have been some gold that he might not have minded adding to his horde. Plus at what distance can dragon eyes bemuse people? What if he walked to the town end of the bridge, hypnotized some survivors and made them marry their siblings?

If you knew that that was a possibility, surely you'd throw down your bridge, just to be safe ("Better cooked that hooked!).

Why does a creature who can fly and attack from the air need with a land bridge? It simply makes no sense that I can see.
You're just not trying hard enough. ;)

I agree that if a land based army was marching on your town, then you may want to cut yourself off from them in that fashion. But the attack was clearly by air and the people of Laketown knew that he was coming by air.
Again, they may have been just responding in haste to an attack of which they knew little, little of what form it would eventually take.

[Sauron the White]

I agree that they responded in haste. I also think this is one of the glaring errors in the writing of this part of the tale.

Lets approach this using a bit of common sense.

"Oh look a fire breathing dragon is attacking us from the air".

""Quick, destroy the only bridge that affords us a quick escape to the land"
Yup, now I see.

[davem]

It seemed a town of Men still throve there, built out on bridges far into the water as a protection against enemies of all sorts, and especially against the dragon of the Mountain.


There was once more a tremendous excitement and enthusiasm. But the grim-voiced fellow ran hotfoot to the Master. "The dragon is coming or I am a fool!"he cried. "Cut the bridges! To arms! To arms!"
Then warning trumpets were suddenly sounded, and echoed along the rocky shores. The cheering stopped and the joy was turned to dread. So it was that the dragon did not find them quite unprepared.
Before long, so great was his speed, they could see him as a spark of fire rushing towards them and growing ever huger and more bright, and not the most foolish doubted that the prophecies had gone rather wrong. Still they had a little time. Every vessel in the town was filled with water, every warrior was armed, every arrow and dart was ready, and the bridge to the land was thrown down and destroyed, before the roar of Smaug's terrible approach grew loud, and the lake rippled red as fire beneath the awful beating of his wings.
Amid shrieks and wailing and the shouts of men he came over them, swept towards the bridges and was foiled! The bridge was gone, and his enemies were on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking. If he plunged into it, a vapour and a steam would arise enough to cover all the land with a mist for
days; but the lake was mightier than he, it would quench him before he could pass through.

Clearly Smaug was afraid of the lake & wished to avoid it as far as possible. The bridge would have given him access to the town certainly, but its entirely possible that he intended to burn the bridge & thereby burn the town, or even just besiege the place & starve the people.

That said, its not clear he actually wanted to destroy Esgaroth at all, merely teach the people a lesson:


"Barrel-rider!"he snorted. "Your feet came from the waterside and up die water you came without a doubt. I don't know your smell, but
if you are not one of those men of the Lake, you had their help. They shall see me and remember who is the real King under the Mountain!"
He rose in fire and went away south towards the Running River.

[skip spence]

Plus at what distance can dragon eyes bemuse people? What if he walked to the town end of the bridge, hypnotized some survivors and made them marry their siblings?

If you knew that that was a possibility, surely you'd throw down your bridge, just to be safe ("Better cooked that hooked!).


That made me laugh out loud. Good stuff alatar!

And StW, didn't they evacuate women children and such before destroying the bridge? This I how I remember it anyway.

I'm getting a bit fed up with this discussion (a smilie not available on this forum comes to mind: you know the 'beating one's head against a brick wall'-one) but let me reiterate and expand on one point I previously made: Lake Town was constructed as it was in order to offer the best possible protection against Smaug. When the defenders destroyed the bridge I must assume they did so because this was part of a pre-devised emergency plan. As they knew the bridge would have to be destroyed quickly I must also assume it was constructed in a manner that makes this possible.

[alatar]

I agree that they responded in haste. I also think this is one of the glaring errors in the writing of this part of the tale.
Of course, being a knighted defender of the faithful, I see no error here (or anywhere). ;) And the trouble those dwarves have caused on this forum.

Lets approach this using a bit of common sense.

"Oh look a fire breathing dragon is attacking us from the air".

""Quick, destroy the only bridge that affords us a quick escape to the land"
Yup, now I see.
"Worms fly and walk. We cannot throw down the air, but can remove at least one avenue of attack."

"But what of escape?"

"Use your common sense, man! What good would it do for any number of us to run across the bridge to the land? Wouldn't that just be the biggest target for Smaug? Those that don't get cooked in the running surely will find their way into the belly of the worm when they make it to shore. Now make haste and scatter to the waters...it's the best chance you've got. Swim, or float as you may on some small support, but stay away from the larger boats as surely Smaug will smite them to ruin."

If that doesn't convince you, then I'll leave with the fact that the Master was not the best leader of men in times of trouble.

And regarding sense, the defenders use arrows against a foe that is immune to said attack (with one small exception), and yet they shot on, trying to do something. And as I see the bridge, not all of it is stationary - it floats a bit up and down with the ebb and flow of the water. For this middle section may be connected by strong rope, and to cut these with an axe would throw down the bridge quickly like so many gordian knots.

[Sauron the White]

How does destroying the bridge to the land help the people of Laketown agains a flying fire breathing dragon who does not need that bridge in the least?

Nobody has answered that key question.

from Alatar

Of course, being a knighted defender of the faithful, I see no error here (or anywhere).

AHHHH!!!!! So this is a question of blind faith in ones deity. That makes the above responses much clearer.

[alatar]

How does destroying the bridge to the land help the people of Laketown agains a flying fire breathing dragon who does not need that bridge in the least?

Nobody has answered that key question.
Sorry, thought that I did.

Can I ask why you assume that Smaug could not make any use of the bridge?

[Rikae]

How does destroying the bridge to the land help the people of Laketown agains a flying fire breathing dragon who does not need that bridge in the least?

Nobody has answered that key question.


Perhaps no one has answered that question because it is entirely irrelevant, since Smaug clearly *does* "need the bridge in the least", while the hypothetical dragon who doesn't fails to enter the story?

Now, if you meant to ask how destroying the bridge helps the people of Laketown against Smaug, that question has been answered several times. To sum up these answers (as I see them - forgive me if I misinterpreted someone's point):

1. Smaug could not land in Laketown without the bridge.
2. Because Smaug could not land, his vulnerable underbelly was exposed. He was, in fact, killed because of this.
3. Smaug feared the water, and the text itself says, in as many words, that he "was foiled", and describes him as originally making for the bridges in his attack.
4. The bridge did not offer a viable escape-route anyway, because the water itself offered more protection from a fire-breathing dragon than did the land.

[Sauron the White]

1. Smaug could not land in Laketown without the bridge.

There is not one iota of proof offered to support that claim. Not one. Just the opposite. We know that boats were loaded and unloaded so there had to have been dock space for that purpose. Smaug - if he wanted to land - could have landed there at the least.

2. Because Smaug could not land, his vulnerable underbelly was exposed. He was, in fact, killed because of this.
The deliberate destruction of the bridge to achieve this goal would only make sense if they first knew about the structural flaw on Smaugs belly. But they clearly did not know of it. Thus, the destruction of the bridge to aid in the downing of the dragon because of his exposed belly was not on or in anyones mind. So if this is your reason for the townspeople destroying the bridge, it clearly could not have been something they were aware of.

3. Smaug feared the water, and the text itself says, in as many words, that he "was foiled", and describes him as originally making for the bridges in his attack.

As long as Smuag had the ability to fly and retreat when tired it is irrelevent as to what he feared. I fear heights but as long as that airplane stays up its no big deal. Smaug never intended to go into the water or on the land for that matter. His attack was strictly aerial from start to finish.

What was he "foiled" in? In destroying the bridge himself? Some of his fun was spoiled? Or maybe Smaug intended to wipe out scores of fleeing townspeople easily as they bunched up closely running across that bridge to possible freedom from his destruction? Again, his fun and intentions were foiled and spoiled. Or in landing upon it and walking over... for what conceivable purpose?

Please quote the section of the text which states that Smaug feared the water. He did not go into it because of the vapor that would rise thus blinding him to the escaping people and it would quench him putting out his fires. But it would hardly harm him.

4. The bridge did not offer a viable escape-route anyway, because the water itself offered more protection from a fire-breathing dragon than did the land.

ANd what supports that belief? A boat on the water was subject to the same aerial attack that those on the ground, or on the bridge, or those who would have reached mainland would have been subject to. There is no difference.
In fact JRRT tells us that Smaug cared not if they went into the boats because the dragon greatly enjoyed the sport of hunting them.

"They could all get into the boats for all he cared. There he could have fine sport hunting them, or they could stop till they starved. "

So JRRT himself says that Smaug intended to hunt them while they were in the boats on the water.

And JRRT himself said from the time the dragon was spotted to the time he arrived was brief.

"Still they had little time".

Given the "little time" they had for Smaug to close that distance, just how did they manage to quickly get organized, grab the proper tools and supplies, divide into divisions of labor, and take down and destroy that bridge? Was this like the River Kwai where the bridge was wired with explosives? I think not. Just how did they destroy that bridge so quickly in the few moments it took Smaug to arrive and attack the town?

[Rikae]

The deliberate destruction of the bridge to achieve this goal would only make sense if they first knew about the structural flaw on Smaugs belly.
They would not need to know this for a fact - conventional wisdom to which even Bilbo had access would give them reason to suspect it:
"I have always understood," said Bilbo in a frightened squeak, "that dragons were softer underneath, especially in the region of the -- er -- chest; but doubtless one so fortified has thought of that"

As long as Smuag had the ability to fly and retreat when tired it is irrelevent as to what he feared.

Since repetition seems to be popular around here anyway, here goes:
Amid shrieks and wailing and the shouts of men he came over them, swept towards the bridges and was foiled!The bridge was gone, and his enemies were on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking.
It seems perfectly clear from this quote that Smaug "was foiled" because the bridge was gone. Now, why this is the case may be up for debate, but the fact that it is so is given in the text. Smaug sweeps "towards the bridges" and is foiled, and the next sentence would seem logically to explain how this was so - and it says "the bridge was gone, and his enemies were... (etc.)" What is your explanation for how Smaug was foiled, if it wasn't by the destruction of the bridges?

Please quote the section of the text which states that Smaug feared the water. He did not go into it because of the vapor that would rise thus blinding him to the escaping people and it would quench him putting out his fires. But it would hardly harm him.
It seems, to me, excessive to quote what Davem already quoted a few posts back. Furthermore, if the water quenched his fire it would seriously impair his attack, which is a perfectly reasonable and obvious explanation for his fear and avoidance of it. This is beside the point at any rate - the point is that the text appears to link the destruction of the bridge with the risk, for Smaug, of ending up in the water or wet, something he wishes to avoid.
Furthermore, the text implies he had some plan involving the bridge, in which he was foiled by its destruction. This alone, even unexplained, shows the destruction of the bridge was of some use against Smaug. The question of the effect of water, because of its placement in the text, strongly suggests Smaug planned to use the bridge in his preferred attack, one which would not be as likely to bring him into contact with the water when the bridge was present. Since an attack by air doesn't carry such a risk in any event, it would appear he would have preferred not to be forced to attack from the air.

And what supports that belief? A boat on the water was subject to the same aerial attack that those on the ground, or on the bridge, or those who would have reached mainland would have been subject to. There is no difference.
I was referring to alatar's imagined scenario in his post #12, which, as you can see, doesn't involve boats. This is not particularly important, however, if it is understood that Smaug would have preferred to attack by land and would have been more dangerous in such an attack. It's true that the reasons behind this remain open to speculation, but Smaug's preferred attack is clear.

Given the "little time" they had for Smaug to close that distance, just how did they manage to quickly get organized, grab the proper tools and supplies, divide into divisions of labor, and take down and destroy that bridge? Was this like the River Kwai where the bridge was wired with explosives? I think not. Just how did they destroy that bridge so quickly in the few moments it took Smaug to arrive and attack the town?
This has already been addressed several times - the bridge was designed to be quickly destroyed. If they had designed it accordingly, a few cuts should have done the trick, and if it was their emergency plan, they likely had the necessary tools readily availiable and people assigned to the task.

[Rikae]

There is not one iota of proof offered to support that claim. Not one.
We have a dragon who was apparently foiled in his preferred attack because of the lack of a bridge - implying his preference was to attack from land, and he could not do so without the bridge - ergo, he couldn't land in Laketown. I would say an appeal to the text of this sort comes closer to "proof" (while it is not proof, and I doubt either side will arrive at any such thing) than speculation about dock space as a dragon-landing-strip does.

[Sauron the White]

They would not need to know this for a fact - conventional wisdom to which even Bilbo had access would give them reason to suspect it:

With all due respect, are you serious? "Convention wisdom" told the town that Smaug had a bare patch in his jewel encrusted armor? And you know this how? Nobody in that town knew anything until the thrush told Bard. Or maybe you know something that JRRT did not tell us in the text. Or you are basing this on the "convention wisdom" that any old dragon can be shot down if you hit it in the belly with an arrow. And the people of the town would know that how? Literature? Experience? Years of hunting dragons?

What is your explanation for how Smaug was foiled, if it wasn't by the destruction of the bridges?
I gave that to you in the post above. Again...

What was he "foiled" in? In destroying the bridge himself? Some of his fun was spoiled? Or maybe Smaug intended to wipe out scores of fleeing townspeople easily as they bunched up closely running across that bridge to possible freedom from his destruction? Again, his fun and intentions were foiled and spoiled. Or in landing upon it and walking over... for what conceivable purpose?

Nobody - your or davem - quoted anything to show that Smaug had a fear - to use the word several have used - of water. JRRT explains how it would hinder Smaugs fun - but that is clearly not the same as some phobia which would ground him. JRRT clearly says he intended to hunt down the townies in their boats upon the very water that he was supposed to fear according to some here.

And by the way, are we suppose to believe that while there were no places large enough for Smaug to land in Laketown, there was plenty of open space for him to maneuver among the various streets and lanes of the town with some elbow room to spare? Either its one way or the other here on the layout of Laketown.

It's true that the reasons behind this remain open to speculation, but Smaug's preferred attack is clear.

Clear as mud. There is nothing to indicate that Smaug intended to land anywhere in Laketown, let alone on the bridge or the same bridge was the one and only place he could have landed. No support for that at all. There is nothing CLEAR about that.

We have a dragon who was apparently foiled in his preferred attack because of the lack of a bridge - implying his preference was to attack from land, and he could not do so without the bridge - ergo, he couldn't land in Laketown. I would say an appeal to the text of this sort comes closer to "proof" (while it is not proof, and I doubt either side will arrive at any such thing) than speculation about dock space as a dragon-landing-strip does."

You are reading things into the text that are not there. Smaug flew towards the bridge and the author never mentions he wanted to land there for any reason let alone the one you place on him. Once again, we are supposed to believe the fallacy that the only place that would accomodate his landing was the bridge but then accept the idea that the streets were wide enough and there were enough open spaces for Smaug to freely go through the city and do his business. Which design of Laketown are you subscribing to because a belief in both those contradict themselves? And how much space is needed for a dragon landing strip? Is there something in the text that tells us that a dragon comes in like a 747 and needs thousands of feet of open space?

And I am still waiting to find out how the townspeople destroyed that bridge in such "little time" as was available to them.

tis is your explaination

This has already been addressed several times - the bridge was designed to be quickly destroyed. If they had designed it accordingly, a few cuts should have done the trick, and if it was their emergency plan, they likely had the necessary tools readily availiable and people assigned to the task.

You certainly have a great deal of faith when things are not there to support them. People without power tools, people without explosives, people who do not have any special skill in these areas are suppose to quickly rush out and destroy a bridge with ... how did you put it? ..... "a few cuts".
You have a great deal more faith than I do before this altar.

[Rikae]

Since answering any of your questions would only involve repeating what I and others already said, I'll simply point you back to the previous posts and suggest you read them. You are misrepresenting the points that have been made, willfully or otherwise, and until you make some honest effort to understand what's already been said further discussion is pointless.

[Macalaure]

"Convention wisdom" told the town that Smaug had a bare patch in his jewel encrusted armor?

Conventional wisdom said that dragons have a vulnerable belly, just as the quote Rikae provided states. As far as I remember, nobody knew about the armour on Smaug's belly. By destroying the bridge, the Lakemen keep Smaug from attacking from land, which gives them the supposed chance to shoot him off the sky with arrows - just as they attempted it.

What was he "foiled" in?

He was foiled in attacking the town properly. His attack is instead reduced to breathing fire and hunting boats. He apparently is unable to land in the town, and he can no longer walk into it.

Or in landing upon it and walking over... for what conceivable purpose?

Because his attack would be much more devastating if he landed and was able to walk through the city. His strength and his claws are useless in an air assault.

Nobody - your [Rikae] or davem - quoted anything to show that Smaug had a fear - to use the word several have used - of water.

As given quotes tell, if Smaug fell into the water it would quench his fire and everything would be covered in mist for days. He would have had to fly home and try again a few days later. By that time, Laketown would likely be deserted. He had no phobia of water or feared for his life - nobody claimed that. He feared that the water would ruin his assault.

And by the way, are we suppose to believe that while there were no places large enough for Smaug to land in Laketown, there was plenty of open space for him to maneuver among the various streets and lanes of the town with some elbow room to spare? Either its one way or the other here on the layout of Laketown.

I would assume that Laketown was more or less build like a medieval village, which means rather narrow streets. But if we look at Tolkien's pictures, we see a dragon who has a long, but rather narrow build. He also could have climbed over the houses, I think.

Clear as mud. There is nothing to indicate that Smaug intended to land anywhere in Laketown, let alone on the bridge or the same bridge was the one and only place he could have landed. No support for that at all. There is nothing CLEAR about that.

There is nothing to indicate that Smaug intended to land anywhere in Laketown, let alone on the bridges. You are right in that, and those who claim it are rather wrong. However, it is rather clear to me that he intended to land on solid ground and then use the bridge to walk into the town to destroy it:

They could all get into boats for all he cared. There he could have fine sport hunting them, or they could stop till they starved. Let them try to get to land and he would be ready.

As you see, he could do nothing but hunt or starve them while they're on the water. He needed them to reach the shores in order to defeat them. The quote already provided says that Smaug's first destination were the bridges, but, as you point out, it doesn't say he wanted to land on them. My guess is that they wouldn't be strong enough to support a landing - the impact might've send him right through it and into the undesired water. The same holds for landing on the docks.

edit:

And I am still waiting to find out how the townspeople destroyed that bridge in such "little time" as was available to them.

Cut the bridges!

To me, this sounds like the bridges were built in a way that requires nothing more than a few axes to destroy them.

[Sauron the White]

When I post these questions it is because others have more knowledge than I do about many of these things. Often, it is quickly resolved and I see what I missed in a mere simple reading. But in this case, it seems that many people who see it differently - and that is certainly their right - are basing much of this on a series of assumptions - any one of which can be challenged and doubt cast upon it.

In this case, we have the assumptions that

*** Smaug was intending to land on the bridge and walk into Laketown

*** he needed a airport sized runway in which to land and only the bridge afforded him that

*** while the bridge was big enough, no other structure in Laketown was including the docks area

*** while the city was crowded and cramped not allowing him to land, it was big enough for him to manuever around - or perhaps small enough enabling him to walk over the structures

*** the bridge was built in a special way so that common folk without power tools or explosives could not only down it, but actually destroy it in the brief time it took from the sighting of Smaug to the arrival of Smaug over Laketown

*** A flying, fire breathing dragon would decide that he was more devestating upon the ground, moving slowly and deliberatly in a crowded town than swooping fast and lithe from above

Okay. These assumptions may be accepted by many here and that is fine. I just cannot in good use of my faculties accept them.

Maybe I simply do not have the faith.

[davem]

I think a lot of this has to do with the effective range of Smaug's fire - how close would he have to be to his target for his flame to be effective? I would suppose that he would have to be fairly close (relatively speaking), which would account for his desire to use the bridge for an assault. Flying close enough to the buildings to ignite them but remaining far enough away from the water to avoid contact with it (& resulting disaster), while flying fast enough to avoid the arrow storm form the defenders would be a horrendously difficult calculation. Then factor in the inevitable fatigue of an extended flight carrying a significant weight of armour in the form of all those jewels.... Smaug is not looking to take risks. He is looking for an easy but devastating victory. His tactics are quite clear - land at the bridge, move slowly through Lake Town burning as he goes & then take off & fly home - at least as I read it.

Look, destroying the bridges is a desperate act, but its a better move than not destroying them. It removes the option of a ground attack & puts him in a slightly less advantageous position. Your question is about as logical as asking why if your enemy is about to attack you with tanks & planes you'd bother taking out the tanks if you could? Well, if you did you could stop worrying about him attacking you with tanks & focus your attention on the air assault. What they're doing is limiting his options for an assault & using the lake as a more effective deterent. What you're forgetting, or ignoring, is that they are in desperate staits & anything which gives them the slightest advantage is going to be snatched up with both hands.

[Rikae]

Okay. These assumptions may be accepted by many here and that is fine. I just cannot in good use of my faculties accept them.

Maybe I simply do not have the faith.

Leaving aside the inaccuracy of several of your characterizations of the assumptions of other posters here...
You yourself seem to be basing your opinions on an assumption I find strange indeed - that Tolkien mentioned the destruction of the bridges not once, but twice, without having any reason for doing so.

[Macalaure]

But in this case, it seems that many people who see it differently - and that is certainly their right - are basing much of this on a series of assumptions - any one of which can be challenged and doubt cast upon it.

I think you're misinterpreting some of those assumptions:


*** Smaug was intending to land on the bridge and walk into LaketownNo indication of landing on the bridge. Some have claimed that, but I see no support for it.


*** he needed a airport sized runway in which to land and only the bridge afforded him that

*** while the bridge was big enough, no other structure in Laketown was including the docks area
These two are founded on the last one.

*** while the city was crowded and cramped not allowing him to land, it was big enough for him to manuever around - or perhaps small enough enabling him to walk over the structuresHe might not be able to land in the town because he would crash right through the structures (when he was shot, that is in fact what he ended up doing). It is indeed not clear why he can't. Whether or not he can manoeuver around in the town depends not only on the way it is built, but also on the shape and size of the dragon.

*** the bridge was built in a special way so that common folk without power tools or explosives could not only down it, but actually destroy it in the brief time it took from the sighting of Smaug to the arrival of Smaug over LaketownWe have to believe that. The bridges were apparently built in a way that a section of them could be torn down by simply cutting a few ropes, which would certainly not take longer than it would take Smaug to arrive. I don't know enough about bridges to say anything about how simple it is to build such, but it doesn't sound unbelievable to me.

*** A flying, fire breathing dragon would decide that he was more devestating upon the ground, moving slowly and deliberatly in a crowded town than swooping fast and lithe from aboveSmaug is pretty devastating from the sky, but clearly not devastating enough to his satisfaction. He sets much of the town on fire and takes down some roofs, but he can't directly kill anybody or destroy houses to the ground. He needs to land for that.

[Nogrod]

Look, destroying the bridges is a desperate act, but its a better move than not destroying them. It removes the option of a ground attack & puts him in a slightly less advantageous position. Your question is about as logical as asking why if your enemy is about to attack you with tanks & planes you'd bother taking out the tanks if you could? Well, if you did you could stop worrying about him attacking you with tanks & focus your attention on the air assault. What they're doing is limiting his options for an assault & using the lake as a more effective deterent. What you're forgetting, or ignoring, is that they are in desperate staits & anything which gives them the slightest advantage is going to be snatched up with both hands.
Smaug is pretty devasting from the sky, but clearly not devastating enough to his satisfaction. He sets much of the town on fire and takes down some roofs, but he can't directly kill anybody or destroy houses to the ground. He needs to land for that.Even if we'd ease a bit and confess that he can indeed kill people from up above it clearly looks to me as that Smaug needed something more to the total victory than just a fiery breath from above. Why else would Tolkien have mentioned it?

Or maybe the people were just thinking Smaug needed that other front to actually destroy the city? They might have been wrong but still acted as they acted according to their belief. I don't see the problem here but it sure seems to arouse strong feelings... :)

[Sauron the White]

Is it heresy to suggest that Tolkien simply wrote a bad paragraph that does not hold up to a clear first reading without tons of assumptions and elaborate explainations?

Probably a silly question here.

[Nogrod]

I must say I can't quite get it now Sauron.

The French built the "infallible" Maginot-line during the 30's because of their well based earlier experiences of warware with Germans. They just didn't foresee the German panzer generals to apply a tactic of blitzkrieg which made the whole line of bastions and bunkers obsolete. People gear up to a war they know. Burning the bridge into a city that is built on a lake for defencive reasons is the first thing to come to one's mind. And even if it's been years I have read the Hobbit the last time I don't think Smaug's attacks were that frequent that the Laketowners would have been so used to it's attacks that they would have known exactly what was to come.

So no extra-assumptions but just a depiction of how people react to a threat - even if that reaction is not the best one considering the opposition they face. Or should all characters in an epic story only behave in the optimal way? You can't possibly require that. And what would be the fun or excitement of a story where every actor was infallible and doing only the "right thing"? :)

[Alfirin]

There could be another reason for destroying the bridge; not to keep Smaug out but to but to keep the Me of Esagoroth in . We know Bard is brave enough to stand and fight, but Tolkein seems to indicate that he may be in the minority in this. Upon hearing of the dragon coming, many might have simply crossed the bridge and fled both making an easy target for smaug and leaving the town itself almost defenseless. taking down the bridge might have been the only way to keep the Men of dale around to fight, by giving them no choice. (much like Julius Caesar burned the bridges behind his troops during the gallic wars to give them no ability to reatrat.

[Sauron the White]

Yes but many left in droves via boat.

[Nogrod]

Yes but many left in droves via boat.Aren't you shying away from the main argument? :)

I mean Alfirin's point was good indeed but it worked within the category of the "best solution". But how about if Tolkien was "getting real" here? He should know how disasterously armies prepared...

[Sauron the White]

I am sorry ... when I read the post I thought that the main point by Alfirin was

taking down the bridge might have been the only way to keep the Men of dale around to fight, by giving them no choice. (much like Julius Caesar burned the bridges behind his troops during the gallic wars to give them no ability to reatrat.

If the only way off Laketown was that bridge I would agree with that point.
But it was not the only way off Laketown. And the people who ordered the destruction of the bridge knew that fact very well since they lived there.
Which is why I responded with

Yes but many left in droves via boat.

I think that directly adresses the main point by Alfirin. If I am still failing to see that point I would welcome further explaination.

[Nogrod]

We all tend to have our main focuses. But to me it was this that carried the discussion a bit further (at least I think so myself):
just a depiction of how people react to a threat - even if that reaction is not the best one considering the opposition they face. Or should all characters in an epic story only behave in the optimal way? You can't possibly require that. And what would be the fun or excitement of a story where every actor was infallible and doing only the "right thing"? :)
I mean what are you exactly going after? Isn't it enough that Tolkien depicted the way the Laketowners acted - like the French with their Maginot-line - and while that wasn't the most effective solution they could have come up with it opened a way to a host of dramatic illustrations for him (like people running away by boats)? And it was believable.

Or do you really think all the actors in an epic should only act according to the optimal way of achievement and thence presume they all know beforehand what the future will bring them ie. making all the characters in a story all-knowledgeable gods?

I guess Tolkien's writings are full of depictions where people make wrong assessments of situations and that's the point of all mythologies and stories, that people get things wrong... :rolleyes:

[Sauron the White]

From my perspective your analogy with the French is faulty. You say that people defend on the basis of what they see and know. The French built the Maginot Line and could never have anticipated the sheer power of the Nazi war machine that came two decades later. But the people of Laketown are looking up into the skies and they see a fire breathing dragon the size of a large building flying towards them at a very quick speed. And what is their reaction to this?

Quick - destroy the bridge.

For me, and I guess it just me, that does not even approach the level of believability that I need to suspend disbelief. It does not pass the smell test.
The answer to the problem has absolutely nothing to do with the problem.

The reaction of the town would make perfect sense if they got word of an advancing army marching on foot towards them. Yes, destroy the bridge to prevent them from easily marching across right into town. But this is a flying dragon for heavens sake. Not an army marching on land. Anyone with eyes looking into the skies of Laketown can see that.

And allow me a personal thought. One reason why I love Tolkien so much is that is so tightly written. It seems that every page, every paragraph, every line, every character and every event was written and rewritten and rewritten again until it was right in every possible way. When I come across things like "destroy the bridge" to stop a flying dragon or a Dwarf who turns into an ultra-marathoner with no training, it just sticks out like a sore thumb because JRRT is such a great writer. I expect better. And 99.9% of the time he delivers.

[Nogrod]

or a Dwarf who turns into an ultra-marathoner with no training, it just sticks out like a sore thumb because JRRT is such a great writer. I expect better. And 99.9% of the time he delivers.I tend to agree with this one... even if we could refer to them being sturdy and hardy. So if not sprinters then ones who could carry a level speed a long time (so contrary to PJ's whimsical interpretation!) - longer than humans or possibly elves whose basic speed would be better... but those are sure other speculations. Sorry, more later as I need to go to sleep now (it's 3.30 AM here). :confused:

[alatar]

Just a quick thought before I'm engaged at getting the kids off to bed: Why do we assume that it's Smaug's intent to destroy Laketown? As I stated earlier, why wouldn't he want to play with the mice a little while, and why sink all of that treasure - regardless if it were large or small - into the lake where he could not go?

Keep in mind that dragons, methinks, are much like cats.

alatar runs off before Bethberry sees him.

[Rikae]

Is it heresy to suggest that Tolkien simply wrote a bad paragraph that does not hold up to a clear first reading without tons of assumptions and elaborate explainations?

Probably a silly question here.

Actually, you may be surprised by this, but I agree that the passage is confusing, and probably more than it needs to be. I'm only saying that I suppose Tolkien had some reason in mind when he wrote about the destruction of the bridges (and, I would argue, intended Smaug's original plan to be crossing the bridge and attacking from the ground, for whatever reason). It's obvious that this doesn't come across clearly - I was confused the first time I read it myself (true, that was over 20 years ago, but I would have been if I first read it now, too.)
If you're saying that something Tolkien wrote fails to clearly get his point across in hopes that this will destroy some kind of straw-man you've devised such as: "Tolkien is not an infallible god", I think you're probably wasting your time, since no one (as far as I can see) claims that. However, if you're interested in debating what the passage means, simply pointing out that it's unclear is kind of pointless.

[Bêthberry]

Just a quick thought before I'm engaged at getting the kids off to bed: Why do we assume that it's Smaug's intent to destroy Laketown? As I stated earlier, why wouldn't he want to play with the mice a little while, and why sink all of that treasure - regardless if it were large or small - into the lake where he could not go?

Keep in mind that dragons, methinks, are much like cats.

alatar runs off before Bethberry sees him.

Now that's just plain erroneous, al. Everyone knows that cats do not need to resort to breathing fire in order to draw respect, awe, fielty, obseisance. All it takes is a flick of the tail. :p

I had always assumed that the command to cut the bridges (easily done if they are suspension bridges hung with rope) represented both the muddled nature of Laketown's defenses, due to poor leadership, coupled with a sort of seige mentality, a bit perhaps like that at Masada.

I'm sure that under such duress enterprising young lads would have worked out the Middle earth equivalent of SuperSoakers, which could well have proven effective, given his desire to avoid water, in holding off Smaug.

Such weapons likely would not ressemble the water pistols of today but more likely be something akin to a . . . water sabre or lance, perhaps even a sort of water Aeglos. Their whereabouts would of course remain unknown to this day.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Would the quickest escape route not be by boat? I am just guessing that they did not keep horses in Esgaroth. . .

Mac quite correctly points out that no body said that Smaug had to land on the bridge. The thing is that if he could slowly aproach the city via the bridge hos level of destruction would be much higher than attacking it from above. . . You grap a bow and arrow, stand up and shoot it at a dummy, then do the same while running around in circles, which one is easier?

The only way that Smaug would have had the same advantage attacking from the air, would have been if he had the flight ability as a helicopter and if he was equally vournrable from every angle.

That being said I think the burning of the bridge was written because it was simple war stradegy and we all know that Tolkien had some experience with this.

I am sorry if I have brought nothing new to this discustion.

[The Sixth Wizard]

Hello all.

The reason the Lake Towners destroyed their own bridge was a mix of battlefield tactics and good sense. First off, however:

Just how did they destroy that bridge so quickly in the few moments it took Smaug to arrive and attack the town?

The Hobbit reads "the bridge was thrown down and destroyed." I personally would presume it was by burning. Although "thrown down" appears to indicate it was ripped apart, Tolkien uses the word "destroy". If it was ripped down, Tolkien would have used words like "broken" instead, which seems to me to indicate it was burned. It would certainly make sense.

And now on to their motives for destroying the bridge.

It is simply good sense. I was watching a television program last night about escape scenarios in sporting arenas. The sporting arenas are unimportant; the point is it struck me that in an emergency, the first thing someone thinks of is to run and get out as fast as they can, forgetting about other members of the community besides their relatives. The first few who ran the bridge might have made it, but this would inspire more people to do the same and cause a massacre when Smaug burned the bridge. The authorities must have decided to rip it down to encourage escape by boat, which would give the populace as a whole more chance of survival.

It is good tactics. If the dragon was to attack via land, the defenders would be forced to confront it bit-by-bit, in small groups. Can you possibly imagine having to fire arrows into the maw of the beast, knowing that you are about to be incinerated and that they will merely bounce off? And to heighten the fear, only a few men near you, who you hardly know, are obligated to do this as well, and they are most likely running for their lives? (This is why armies of antiquity used flaming arrows and bolts; it is utterly terrifying to think you might burn alive.) It would be a rout. Even if the men were all into suicide, they would make no impression upon Smaug's armour and would only get one shot each.

I don't think dragons can hover; any soaring lizards of today can not fly efficiently and, more to the point, flying lizards of the dinosaurs' time such as Quetzalcoatlus could not hover or even take off without updrafts, and those creatures were built purely for flight. Smaug is built like a lizard in Tolkien's pictures, not a cat. Lizards such as Australian goannas can not curl up like a dragon would need to do in order to land on buildings. Therefore the dragon would be forced to do a series of fly-bys, with fire breath in short bursts, before wheeling around and attacking again. Indeed, in the book, Smaug is described as "swooping". (Coincidentally, the Hobbit video game has him hovering; as if! :rolleyes:) Smaug would have to exert himself far more than usual thanks to the jewels he weighed himself down with, for far less overall damage, exposing his most vulnerable area to the masses of archers, most likely on rooftops, who could fire all at once.

Think about it, people. This was the absolute best chance the people of Lake Town had. Escape via the bridge is an utterly farsical notion. :p

[Macalaure]

But the people of Laketown are looking up into the skies and they see a fire breathing dragon the size of a large building flying towards them at a very quick speed. And what is their reaction to this?

Quick - destroy the bridge.

For me, and I guess it just me, that does not even approach the level of believability that I need to suspend disbelief. It does not pass the smell test.
The answer to the problem has absolutely nothing to do with the problem.

How could they defend themselves against Smaug? Apart from arrows (so they thought), there were only two things they could do: prepare as much water as possible (which they did) and make sure that the dragon at least can't land and cause even more damage. This has nothing to do with belief - it just makes plain sense. What else could they have done? What do you suggest instead?

The only other option is to flee. But as Rune has pointed out, they probably kept very little horses at Esgaroth, and you just can't escape from a flying, fire-breathing dragon on foot. Even if everybody would have run into a different direction, Smaug would have killed most of them by his fire. Within the town, the people had a limited ability to fight the fires, not so on the land.

Tolkien didn't provide us with a stat sheet about Smaug. We don't know his exact size, shape and weight, not his endurance or style of flying or landing. The people of Laketown, and the people who built Laketown and its bridges, probably knew a bit more about it. All we can do is deduce these things from the given text. From his death scene we know that his weight was great enough to crash through the city, yet presumably little enough to be able to walk through or over it. His style of flying apparently didn't allow him to slow down his flight and land like a bird on a twig. His armour was strong enough to allow him to land anywhere on the shore - he didn't have to care about how many trees he would mow down. I would say that the builders of Laketown had this in mind and built their town and bridges like this in order to have a chance of avoiding the fate of Dale (do we know how exactly Dale was destroyed? I don't have my book with me right now, and it could be interesting to check).

[The Sixth Wizard]

Here's a classic picture of Smaug.

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~jstone/images/Smaug.jpg

You think THAT could land on Esgaroth rooftops? Pssshh...

[Rikae]

Good points, Sixth, just one thing I'd like to mention:


The Hobbit reads "the bridge was thrown down and destroyed." I personally would presume it was by burning. Although "thrown down" appears to indicate it was ripped apart, Tolkien uses the word "destroy". If it was ripped down, Tolkien would have used words like "broken" instead, which seems to me to indicate it was burned. It would certainly make sense.


I think this description fits quite well with the suspension-bridge scenario - the bridge could be both "cut" and literally "thrown down". When the bridge is also "destroyed", it could very well be that it was first cut loose, then set on fire (setting it on fire without cutting it loose first risks setting the city on fire as well).

I would imagine the bridges probably had guards posted and these guards, during their initial training, were taught the emergency bridge-destruction plan, shown where the tools were kept and which ropes to cut if the signal was given, something of this nature. Even in the absence of guards, those who lived and worked near the bridges would have been similarly prepared. If the villiage is small enough, everyone might have known said emergency plan and been prepared to execute it.

[davem]

Tolkien's drawing of Laketown.

http://www.anarda.net/tolkien/dibujos/LAKETOWN.jpg

Not sure how easy it would be to throw down this bridge, though its possible that the pillars supporting it were held in place by the planks, so that if you removed them the pillars would fall sideways into the lake.

[Sauron the White]

A picture says a thousand words.
Thank you to davem for supplying that drawing of Laketown. It does two things to reinforce my point:
1- the bridge is no flimsy thing supported by ropes. It is on strong and thick pillars. And like davem says, it looks like it is not easily destroyed without yet another litany of assumptions about many thing not visibe in the picture or written about in the text.
2- the area of the docks between the water and the buildings is indeed much wider than the actual bridge itself. Given the thinness of Smaug (again based on the other JRRT painting) he could have just as easilly landed on any of that docking space as opposed to that bridge. Which is what I have been saying from the very beginning. Smaug did not need the bridge if his intention was to land and go house to house.

I do think that if this passage had been written for LOTR, it would have been longer, more fully developed and the detail much crisper and clearer. JRRT would have explained what Smaugs intentions were, and perhaps explained why it ws necessary to thrown down and destroy the bridge. JRRT was such a superb writer that I have no doubt it would have made perfect sense.

Having said that, THE HOBBIT was written on a far different level and that type of explaination and detail was simply not there. As a result, we get a rather confusing couple of lines that are open to various different meanings.

[Rikae]

Or maybe the people were just thinking Smaug needed that other front to actually destroy the city? They might have been wrong but still acted as they acted according to their belief.

The trouble with that interpretation, though, is that Tolkien does tell us Smaug was foiled - so the Lakemen's action was effective in some way. Now, I suppose it's possible that they cut down the bridge to foil Smaug in one way while he was actually foiled in a completely different way (they thought he had one plan involving the bridge while he really had another), but the simplest and most likely explanation is that the plan they thought he had and the one he actually had were the same.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Not sure how easy it would be to throw down this bridge, though its possible that the pillars supporting it were held in place by the planks, so that if you removed them the pillars would fall sideways into the lake.

Quite possible. At least the left part of the bridge looks funnily enough like suspension bridge. Another thing is, where that boat on the right thinks it is going? It has nowhere much to land there, and it is positively heading into the dead end part between the town and the bridge. Maybe it expects the bridge to lift in front of it? ;)

[Rikae]

1- the bridge is no flimsy thing supported by ropes. It is on strong and thick pillars. And like davem says, it looks like it is not easily destroyed.
It doesn't look easily thrown down, to be sure. For that matter, Smaug looks entirely too long and thin for a flying creature.

2- the area of the docks between the water and the buildings is indeed much wider than the actual bridge itself. Given the thinness of Smaug (again based on the other JRRT painting) he could have just as easilly landed on any of that docking space as opposed to that bridge.

Several people have already said Smaug's plan was probably to cross the bridge, not to land on it.

[Rikae]

Quite possible. At least the left part of the bridge looks funnily enough like suspension bridge. Another thing is, where that boat on the right thinks it is going? It has nowhere much to land there, and it is positively heading into the dead end part between the town and the bridge. Maybe it expects the bridge to lift in front of it? ;)

I also wonder why the bridge seems to end up at least ten feet above ground level on the side attached to land - not to mention that the house is placed so close to its end as to make traffic to and from the bridge difficult.

Hmm... there appear to be spikes affixed to the larger roofs. I wonder what the intended purpose of those could be? :Merisu:

[The Sixth Wizard]

I'd think that Smaug wouldn't want to land on the walkways around Laketown because of their possible flimsiness and the likelihood of him falling in or touching the water. At least he knew that the bridge could hold heavy objects that were carted across every day...

It may also be *gasp* not a very good picture... :eek:

[Rikae]

I'd think that Smaug wouldn't want to land on the walkways around Laketown because of their possible flimsiness and the likelihood of him falling in or touching the water. At least he knew that the bridge could hold heavy objects that were carted across every day...


He probably could also maneuver much more carefully on foot than he could in landing - so, land on solid ground and walk across the bridge.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I don't know much about throwing down bridges, which is weird as it is what we Danes do best. . . but I have read about several cases where massive bridges was thrown down relatively quickly. Now this is a wooden bridge, this definitly is an advantage if you want to throw it down, but we have a hughe problem. . . We cannot know how the bridge was cunstructed, the fact that there is a lot of pillars tells us nothing of how strong the bridge was.

Burning bridges on the other hand, at that I am an expert!

About Smaug landing on the docking area or whatever it is between the houses and the water: Indeed it looks like there is plenty of space at the part closest to us, but if you look where it is level with the bridge it is actually quite difficult to say how broad any of the things is.

To reach a final conclution on this matter we really need to know about Smaug and Lake Towns siezes and Smaugs flying abilities.

[Alfirin]

I don't think Smaug would want to completely destroy Esgaroth, just do enough damge to put the town in fear of him again. The town would be a useful source of tribute to him if not in gold than in food. A dragon as big as Smaugh would need a lot of food and Esgaroth's livestock (not to mention its citizens) would be like a cornucopia of low effort munchies (swoop down grab something and dinner is served; no hunting required)

As to the question of smaug's landing in Esagroth proper, I think it really depends on exactly what shape you think smaug is. If you think he is a stocky lizard shape then your right he can't if you think he is more sinous and flexible in from then he migh be able to coit around a rooftop. and if you belive (as I do) that flying dragons were closer to wyvrens in shape (i.e. that the wings were attached to the front legs not coming independenly out of the back) than smaug migh have landed in a more bipedal sitting, stance, in which case the space needed would be much less (say the size of the town square)

As to the comments on my earlier post I agree I had frogotten about boats however I'm not sure that there would have been sufficient boatage to get everyone off the island. most of the boats would proably have been small fishing vessels capable of holding five or six people tops. The vast majority would still have been stuck without the bridge. Moreover boats would not be as safe and exit as they sound at first. It takes time to set sails and rowing is slow. The hot air, both from Smaug and the burning city would probably have mucked up the wind assuming there was any that night. All the boat leaving at once would have ment serious problems with wakes bulding on each other into waves. Not to mention that anyone in a boat would be more or less a stiing duck should Smaug decide to fly over and spary them with flame. (or if he was really clever slap the water with his tail and make some serios waves. On that subject I'm not sure where everone is getting the idea that spraying water at Smaug would have been an effective weapon. Dragon fire (unlike say a campfire) is most likey self renew and probably cant be squetched by spraying liquid in the mouth (if it could than a dragons flame would go out every time it ate or drank. Water might have been good for putting out the fires Smaug made but any water sprayed at him while he was breathing flame would have probably just evaporated.

[Macalaure]

It may also be *gasp* not a very good picture... :eek:

Apart from the problems already mentioned, note that in the text Tolkien talks of bridges, while this Laketown only possesses one. The prof probably didn't have pedantic accuracy in mind when he drew this.

[The Sixth Wizard]

I've just found an interesting new line. Bard says, "Cut the bridges!" indicating to me at least that they were in fact dropped, not burnt. My bad... :Merisu:

There's a few problems in your post Alfrin:

I don't think Smaug would want to completely destroy Esgaroth, just do enough damge to put the town in fear of him again. The town would be a useful source of tribute to him if not in gold than in food. A dragon as big as Smaugh would need a lot of food and Esgaroth's livestock (not to mention its citizens) would be like a cornucopia of low effort munchies (swoop down grab something and dinner is served; no hunting required)

As to the question of smaug's landing in Esagroth proper, I think it really depends on exactly what shape you think smaug is. If you think he is a stocky lizard shape then your right he can't if you think he is more sinous and flexible in from then he migh be able to coit around a rooftop. and if you belive (as I do) that flying dragons were closer to wyvrens in shape (i.e. that the wings were attached to the front legs not coming independenly out of the back) than smaug migh have landed in a more bipedal sitting, stance, in which case the space needed would be much less (say the size of the town square)

As to the comments on my earlier post I agree I had frogotten about boats however I'm not sure that there would have been sufficient boatage to get everyone off the island. most of the boats would proably have been small fishing vessels capable of holding five or six people tops. The vast majority would still have been stuck without the bridge. Moreover boats would not be as safe and exit as they sound at first. It takes time to set sails and rowing is slow. The hot air, both from Smaug and the burning city would probably have mucked up the wind assuming there was any that night. All the boat leaving at once would have ment serious problems with wakes bulding on each other into waves. Not to mention that anyone in a boat would be more or less a stiing duck should Smaug decide to fly over and spary them with flame. (or if he was really clever slap the water with his tail and make some serios waves. On that subject I'm not sure where everone is getting the idea that spraying water at Smaug would have been an effective weapon. Dragon fire (unlike say a campfire) is most likey self renew and probably cant be squetched by spraying liquid in the mouth (if it could than a dragons flame would go out every time it ate or drank. Water might have been good for putting out the fires Smaug made but any water sprayed at him while he was breathing flame would have probably just evaporated.

Lets think about it; Smaug was pretty majorly peeved, I can't find a passage but he sure wanted to burn that place down. He didn't spare Dale, which was much closer, for tribute reasons, why would he spare Esgaroth? Dragons such as Smaug tended to sleep all day and were mystical creatures, they may not have needed so much food as they did gold, to sate their hunger.

An overly twisted dragon cannot fly all that well (at least not in take-off). I think Smaug was a mix of the two styles, wyvern and lizard.

Water I believe was used more as a fear element and to douse fires on the houses, not against Smaug. Dragon fire must not have been self-renew, because otherwise Beleriand would still be burning! :D At least the villagers thought water was a good tool, so it must have helped somewhat.

As for the boats, it is expressly stated that everyone had evacuated via boat, and this is Lake Town we're talking about, boats were how they got around and did business, every family must have had at least one.

[Rikae]

Apart from the problems already mentioned, note that in the text Tolkien talks of bridges, while this Laketown only possesses one. The prof probably didn't have pedantic accuracy in mind when he drew this.

Indeed (that's my point in babbling about "10 feet above ground level" etc.)
I love Tolkien's illustrations - their style and feel is delightful - but this wouldn't be the first time one seemed to make something in the text impossible (I can't remember which, but I know I've looked at one of his drawings before and thought "but that's not accurate! It's not like that in the book!")

[Alfirin]

There's a few problems in your post Alfrin:

An overly twisted dragon cannot fly all that well (at least not in take-off). I think Smaug was a mix of the two styles, wyvern and lizard.

Water I believe was used more as a fear element and to douse fires on the houses, not against Smaug. Dragon fire must not have been self-renew, because otherwise Beleriand would still be burning! :D At least the villagers thought water was a good tool, so it must have helped somewhat.

As for the boats, it is expressly stated that everyone had evacuated via boat, and this is Lake Town we're talking about, boats were how they got around and did business, every family must have had at least one.

When I said twisted I meant like a snake can coil around on itself in a ring or wrap itslef around a branch; as the body took fligh it would uncoil (much as how a snake when it starts moving uncoils itlsef

By the fire being "self renewing" I meant self renewing inside the (living) dragon. If something was set on fire by a dragon it could of course be put out; all I meant was that I don't think that if you squirt wather down a dragons throat it keeps him from breathing fire (i.e. you can't put out a dragon's pilot light except by killing the dragon or destroying the organ (whatever it is). Given that I'm not sure why Smaug would be afraid of water (or did you mean something by fear element I'm not getting) Falling into the lake, sure, assuming that Smaug can't swim (he was already mortally wounded when he hit the lake so the question of wether he would have had a problme if he had hit it while still heathy is in my opinon still open. Some snakes can swim so maybe snaky dragons can, too) The only reason I can think of that water might worry Smaug would be that if enough water was sprayed on his belly the gunk/slime that holds the jewels in place might dissolve and his whole belly would again be vulnerable. However the men of Laketown would not know this and so could not have prepared water for this. In fact if the last time anyone saw smaugh was when he sacked Dale (before killing off the dwarves) he may not have had the jewel armor yet (no hoard to make it from)

I concede that smaug might not need tribute food and might destroy esgaroth to the ground and take its gold (though if he was smart he would realize that as long as there are still people there more gold will come in. Destroy everthing and you can sack only once, destroy a little and you can sack again and again) but still he may have to much malice in him to think that far ahead. Likewise I was not aware they said that there boats enough for all so I retract that part.

[The Sixth Wizard]

By the fire being "self renewing" I meant self renewing inside the (living) dragon.

Ah my mistake.

Actually I was always at a loss as to how Smaug kept those jewels on him... obviously they are his most prized ones or the most hard, so he wouldn't want them to fall off. I always thought they kind of "stuck on", as though he had lain on them for so long they just stick, like say, when you breathe on a spoon and stick it to your nose..

Dragon anatomy ... now THAT would be a cool topic. :cool:

[Rikae]

I think, Alfirin, that you're right in saying that spraying water on Smaug wouldn't put out his fire, but it certainly seems like total immersion in cold water would, at least temporarily, do so.
If he plunged into it, a vapour and a steam would arise enough to cover all the land with a mist for
days; but the lake was mightier than he, it would quench him before he could pass through.
(Assuming "quench him" means it would impair his fire-producing ability.)

[Sauron the White]

Bard saying "cut the bridges" is confusing becuase - according to the drawing of Laketown - I see nothing to cut. This is not some suspension bridge. Perhaps "cut the bridges" was a shorthand way of saying something else.

However, I do think the drawing - done by the same man who wrote the text so he certainly knew what he felt Laketown looked like - gives support to my initial position that Smaug did not need the bridge for any reason. He had plenty of space on the dock s around the buildings and they run the length and width of the town providing ample space to both take off and land. And they do look rather wide.

If anyone is going to postulate that they will not support Smaugs weight, that would then apply also to the entire town since its all on the same foundation. Those support pillars go right up to the edge of the docks.

But it is my contention that Smaug - being a creature who is much faster in the air - would stick to a fast and quick aerial attack because that is where his advantage lied. You can speculate about food and additional treasure all you want, but the idea of a massive dragon walking foot by foot through this rather crowded looking town while many armed people attacked him at close range, defies logic for him to take that approach. There is simply no advantage to him doing that as opposed to his great advantage in the air.

There is no reason to destroy that bridge against a creature who is attacking you from the air. When the Germans did their lengthy bombing of England in WWII, was anyone heard to say "quick, the Lutwaffe is coming, destroy London Bridge". Seems rather silly does it not.

[alatar]

Not sure of the exact mechanism, but under extreme magnification I noted that the bridge was designed to repel Smaug.

[Sauron the White]

That was rather funny. Very clever Alatar.

[Macalaure]

Bard saying "cut the bridges" is confusing becuase - according to the drawing of Laketown - I see nothing to cut. This is not some suspension bridge. Perhaps "cut the bridges" was a shorthand way of saying something else.

However, I do think the drawing - done by the same man who wrote the text so he certainly knew what he felt Laketown looked like - gives support to my initial position that Smaug did not need the bridge for any reason. He had plenty of space on the dock s around the buildings and they run the length and width of the town providing ample space to both take off and land. And they do look rather wide.Text and picture obviously do not match (just take the number of bridges). Therefore, one must be faulty. Since I think Tolkien was much more careful about what he wrote than he was about what he drew, in the case of contradiction I would take the description and discard the depiction.

And even if we take the picture, landing on those docks looks dangerous, considering Smaug's speed and the fact that one misstep would make him end up in the lake.

If anyone is going to postulate that they will not support Smaugs weight, that would then apply also to the entire town since its all on the same foundation. Those support pillars go right up to the edge of the docks.It would support the weight, but perhaps not the impact. He did crash through it when he died, and do we know whether he was able to sufficiently slow down before landing? I still think it is believable that Smaug was not able to land inside the town, but apart from the fact that it is said that he was unable to, there appears to be no evidence to either side.

But it is my contention that Smaug - being a creature who is much faster in the air - would stick to a fast and quick aerial attack because that is where his advantage lied. You can speculate about food and additional treasure all you want, but the idea of a massive dragon walking foot by foot through this rather crowded looking town while many armed people attacked him at close range, defies logic for him to take that approach. There is simply no advantage to him doing that as opposed to his great advantage in the air.

My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death!
Consider this and tell me why Smaug should be afraid of many armed people attacking him at close range? Smaug's only advantage in the air is speed and mobility. If you consider yourself invincible, this is only little advantage. To the contrary, he is much more deadly when he can engage in closer "combat", which he is unable to do while flying.

There is no reason to destroy that bridge against a creature who is attacking you from the air. When the Germans did their lengthy bombing of England in WWII, was anyone heard to say "quick, the Lutwaffe is coming, destroy London Bridge". Seems rather silly does it not.
Seems a silly analogy indeed. It would be analogous if there had been a bridge over the channel, and if there had been one, you can bet it would have been torn down in a minute.

[Sauron the White]

My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death!

Consider this and tell me why Smaug should be afraid of many armed people attacking him at close range? Smaug's only advantage in the air is speed and mobility. If you consider yourself invincible, this is only little advantage. To the contrary, he is much more deadly when he can engage in closer "combat", which he is unable to do while flying.

Based on that drawing, it looks like Laketown is a crowded place without much room for a large beast like Smaug to maneuver around, let alone quickly. I would think that to box him into a small area where several buildings converge would give attackers on the ground their best chance at him. His speed and agility and overhead advantage is removed and negated. Its like getting a fast moving boxer cornered in a smaller ring where he cannot move around and use his advantages.

Closer combat means his eyes are closer to attackers and how does he protect those? It also lessens the distance between the fired arrows and means they have more force when they hit since they are not going so far out and upwards. I would think the physics of war would be more on the sides of the townies when they can shoot at closer range and perhaps use buildings as shields and protection. But thats just speculation.

I would equate Smaugs boasting to modern day pro wreslters who thump their chests and boast how they will rip out the organs of their opponent while reading from a prepared script. Its part of the show and is all hype and bluster. I think Smaug was not above that sort of thing.

[Rikae]

His speed and agility and overhead advantage is removed and negated. Its like getting a fast moving boxer cornered in a smaller ring where he cannot move around and use his advantages.
I don't know where you get the idea that Smaug's advantages (or even his greatest advantages) are speed and agility. What about his size and strength (knocking down roofs with his tail, crashing through the city), his fiery breath and his armour? If you want to fight him at close range, be my guest - I'd prefer to keep my distance.
It also lessens the distance between the fired arrows and means they have more force when they hit since they are not going so far out and upwards.
Indeed, they are not going upwards, and therefore are aimed at the toughest part of the dragon.
I would think the physics of war would be more on the sides of the townies when they can shoot at closer range and perhaps use buildings as shields and protection. But thats just speculation.

They can use buildings more effectively for this purpose when Smaug isn't close enough to smash or incinerate said buildings.

[Sauron the White]

It is wonderful that the human condition permits us to take the same set of facts and come to the very opposite conclusions. :)

[Bêthberry]

As to the question of bridge versus bridges, it is quite possible that Laketown had internal bridges and not only the one bridge leading from shore to "pontoon" town, as it were. (Yes, I know the town was not technically a floating town.) Tolkien's drawing uses the perspective of the shoreline and so would not necessarily show the inner bridge work, although it does show possible side "canals" into the town. It does not in fact show the sheltering rock which his text mentions either--again, simply the fact that one drawing cannot reproduce all the aspects of perspective available to a written text. In this case, the thousand words actually are more informative.


Not far from the mouth of the Forest River was the strange town he heard the elves speak of in the king's cellars. It was not built on the shore, though there were a few huts and buildings there, but right out on the surface of the lake, protected from the swirl of the entering river by a promontory of rock which formed a calm bay. A great bridge made of wood ran out to where on huge piles made of forest trees was built a busy wooden town, not a town of elves but of Men, who still dared to dwell here under the shadow of the distant dragon-mountain.

Interestingly, Alan Lee's drawing of Laketown picks up on this possiblity of canals:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/MimsyBorogroves/LaketownAlanLee.jpg

As for whether a fire breathing dragon could be squelched by spirts of SuperSoakers, well, that depends upon the anatomy of said dragon and the method of producing the fire. Certainly it is unlikely that any internal forge is at work, as we would have to question how the dragon's interal organs would withstand the fire. Here's a most interesting analysis of how intelligently to design a fire breathing dragon:

The Scientifc Feasibility of Fire Breathing Dragons (http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/Fire.htm)

If this design of a methane-holding bladder in the head is feasible, it would possibly provide two uses: not simply to produce fire, but also to act as ballast, allowing the dragon to fly by his own internal 'hot air balloon'. So the dragon would be forced to employ a balancing act as it were: too much fire production would hinder his flight capabilities, thus necessitating some sort of ground assault.

As for the generation of fire, the spark necessary to ignite the gas from this bladder could easily be what the SuperSoakers would aim for. So they would not necessarily be putting out the flames so much as inhibiting the production of the flames.

[davem]

Destroying the bridge is the smartest thing to do in terms of survival - you set up a defensive position, with no access from/to the shore & fill it with archers. This allows the rest of the population to escape in dribs & drabs by boats, landing at many different points around the lake, while Smaug is distracted in attacking the town. Having everybody trying to escape via the bridge would be idiotic, as they'd all be funneled onto the same part of the shore line. Bard & the defenders are setting themselves up as a diversion to allow their fellow citizens to escape.

Now, of course, that may not have worked out:

Soon all the town would be deserted and burned down to the surface of the lake.
That was the dragon's hope. They could all get into boats for all he cared. There he could have fine sport hunting them, or they could stop till they starved. Let them try to get to land and he would be ready. Soon he would set all the shoreland woods ablaze and wither every field and pasture. Just now he was enjoying the sport of town-baiting more than he had enjoyed anything for years.

but the point is they are fighting for survival against almost impossible odds. Most likely they will all die but they're making the best of a very bad situation. Quite simply, destroying the bridge is just marginally smarter than not destroying it.

[alatar]

It is wonderful that the human condition permits us to take the same set of facts and come to the very opposite conclusions. :)
It's that 'priors' thing, or which colour your spectacles are when you view said data.

And, not to add too much more, but aren't all aerial attacks followed up by a ground assault? Was Smaug just trying to stay on script? Did Sauron, who could have used Smaug if he were living at the time of the Fellowship, somehow want Smaug to preserve what he could of Laketown to use as a base?

[The Sixth Wizard]

Those who think it would be smarter to attack Smaug while he was landridden, I don't think you get the fear factor here. Fighting him with bows as he swoops lazily over your burning town is scary enough; fighting a monster who can breathe fire on wood (again, wood) with close range weapons is just too much for even the bravest warriors. No-one would stay to fight, except maybe Bard.

[Eönwë]

while the city was crowded and cramped not allowing him to land, it was big enough for him to manuever around - or perhaps small enough enabling him to walk over the structures

Do you know how strong Smaug is?
My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death!

Even if this is an exaggeration, he could easily take down buildings with his arms and tail. This would be easy for him. He just walks around, smashing down buildings and killing all people in his way.

Closer combat means his eyes are closer to attackers and how does he protect those?

He had eye-caps like snakes. If Melkor designed a killing machine based on a reptile, wouldn't he have given it the best weapons protection reptiles had to offer? In fact, wouldn't he have give it the best weapons and protection any animal has to offer (And beyond)?

And as for your question of how they broke down the bridges?

What about Motte and bailey castles ages ago (around 1066+). They could get rid of that bridge immediately. (examples here (http://www.thefoxinnhallaton.co.uk/images/motte_bailey_lg.jpg), here (http://www.chichester.gov.uk/media/image/b/9/castlebig.jpg), here (http://www.thehistoryman.com/db5/00430/thehistoryman.com/_uimages/hillfort2.jpg), here (http://www.castles.me.uk/images/motte-castle.jpg) and here (http://www.btinternet.com/~timeref/mottb1b.jpg)
Or they could end it with a drawbridge, like here (http://www.thehistoryman.com/db5/00430thehistoryman.com/_uimages/hillfort2.jpg) and here (http://www.berkshirehistory.com/castles/images/hampstead_nor_cast.jpg)

[The Sixth Wizard]

If this design of a methane-holding bladder in the head is feasible, it would possibly provide two uses: not simply to produce fire, but also to act as ballast, allowing the dragon to fly by his own internal 'hot air balloon'. So the dragon would be forced to employ a balancing act as it were: too much fire production would hinder his flight capabilities, thus necessitating some sort of ground assault.

Let's forget about this methane-bladder theory, please. Dragon's fire, at least in Tolkien, is created through the physical form of the dragon's inner fea, the fire spirit that has been corrupted by Morgoth. Adding in actual bodily elements, while quite interesting, is much too complicated for this thread methinks. I think we should keep it simple for now.

Sorry to completely snub you Bêth... :p

[Sauron the White]

from eonwe

Do you know how strong Smaug is?

Wiseguy answer #1- if you have stats as to his ablities to lift weights please provide them.
Wiseguy answer #2 - no and neither do you, its all speculation and conjecture

Actual answer to your question: You seem to accept the premise that Smaug needs to land in Laketown at all. Again, there is no evidence that Smaug intended to land in Laketown or needed to land in Laketown. Tearning down a bridge to thwart a flying creature who is attacking you in the air is nonsensical no matter how many people want to talk about land invasions.

And yet again I refer you and others to the actual drawing that JRRT made of Laketown where it clearly shows wide dockside areas that are much wider than the bridge. If Smaug had intended to land in the town, he clearly had ample space to do so. The fact is this: he did not chose to do so.

He had eye-caps like snakes. If Melkor designed a killing machine based on a reptile, wouldn't he have given it the best weapons protection reptiles had to offer? In fact, wouldn't he have give it the best weapons and protection any animal has to offer (And beyond)?

You give this information as if it were holy writ that has been approved by decades of scientific investigation. Melkor himself spent long years trying to breed dragons and failed continually to get the ones that he wanted to get. They were imperfect. How do you know that Smaug was such a perfect fighting machine with the protections you ascribe to him? Again, its all speculation and conjecture. You do not KNOW what his eyes were any more than I do. I am speculating that he had his eyes open to see what was going on. Those eyes are targets for someone on the ground close to them.

They could get rid of that bridge immediately. (examples here, here, here, here and here
Or they could end it with a drawbridge, like here and here

Thank you for those pictures. Sadly, none of them are the bridge that Tolkien himself drew and is pictured in this thread. The bridge Tolkien drew is different and more substantial with thick pillars supporting it along its span. It is not a drawbridge, or a suspension bridge and there is no mention of it being rigged for easy destruction. Just the opposite. Tolkine's own illustration - which conveniently some here want to dismiss because it supports my argument - shows a substantial structure built on many thick pillars. There is nothing to quickly "cut".

[Bêthberry]

Let's forget about this methane-bladder theory, please. Dragon's fire, at least in Tolkien, is created through the physical form of the dragon's inner fea, the fire spirit that has been corrupted by Morgoth. Adding in actual bodily elements, while quite interesting, is much too complicated for this thread methinks. I think we should keep it simple for now.

Sorry to completely snub you Bêth... :p

Oh, not a snub at all, no need to apologize, Sixth Wiz. :)

Your comment simply demonstrates your relative newbie-ness, as someone who, having joined in April 2006, likely has not had the pleasure of recognizing how some of us olde timers like to posit hypotheses. I refer you of course to one of the most speculative of threads, started April 10, 2005 (heavens! but three years old, almost still smelling of that new car smell!), alatar's "Snow Angels" thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=12283&highlight=custard%3B+Legolas%3B+walking) , wherein Lalwende reports her extensive experiments with custard. It is possible methane had a passing mention there too. I believe it was Mister Underhill and Sharkey who contributed mightily to instigating this particular form of speculation--their thread certainly would not have any lingering new car smell. I bet Esty could provide a link to that thread.

Do continue of course with your own speculations. I suppose we could posit that Gandalf had no need for a staff to focus his fireworks, but simply preferred not to be mistaken for a mouthy dragon.

[Galendor]

I don't think dragons can hover; any soaring lizards of today can not fly efficiently and, more to the point, flying lizards of the dinosaurs' time such as Quetzalcoatlus could not hover or even take off without updrafts, and those creatures were built purely for flight. Smaug is built like a lizard in Tolkien's pictures, not a cat. Lizards such as Australian goannas can not curl up like a dragon would need to do in order to land on buildings. Therefore the dragon would be forced to do a series of fly-bys, with fire breath in short bursts, before wheeling around and attacking again. Indeed, in the book, Smaug is described as "swooping".

Everyone knows that most if not all dragons have relatively small wings considering their body size, and therefore use a rotary, high-speed and constant wingstroke like a hummingbird or bumblebee to fly. This creates a flying/fighting style that is both humorous and terrifying to behold.

But, as TSW points out, perhaps Smaug had relatively large wings and flew more like a buzzard or condor (primarily soaring and using an occasional vertical wing stroke to recover altitude and velocity). If so, he might need to use a high altitude (i.e. Lonely Mountain) launching site and thermal updrafts to take flight.

So perhaps Smaug did not land in Lake Town because he knew he would not be able to take off again from that low altitude situation, and without a bridge would be trapped unless he could swim (which is unknown).

[Eönwë]

Sauron the White, I am sure that there is something about Glaurung's which suggests this, and when I have more time I'll try to find the quote for you.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Everyone knows that most if not all dragons have relatively small wings considering their body size, and therefore use a rotary, high-speed and constant wingstroke like a hummingbird or bumblebee to fly. This creates a flying/fighting style that is both humorous and terrifying to behold.

But, as TSW points out, perhaps Smaug had relatively large wings and flew more like a buzzard or condor (primarily soaring and using an occasional vertical wing stroke to recover altitude and velocity). If so, he might need to use a high altitude (i.e. Lonely Mountain) launching site and thermal updrafts to take flight.

So perhaps Smaug did not land in Lake Town because he knew he would not be able to take off again from that low altitude situation, and without a bridge would be trapped unless he could swim (which is unknown).

Is the first part about the wings a joke? It is just that I cannot see how there can be common knowledge about a fable-animal, the descirption of dragons are very different depending on what part of the world you are in and in some places there are no "given" form that the dragon has.

About Smaug needing thermal updrafts: It is a possibility, but would that not limit is mobility? It would be extremely difficult for him to fly away from whatever mountain range he was living by, just like you never see the big vultures of South America very far from the mountains.

[skip spence]

Those who think it would be smarter to attack Smaug while he was landridden, I don't think you get the fear factor here. Fighting him with bows as he swoops lazily over your burning town is scary enough; fighting a monster who can breathe fire on wood (again, wood) with close range weapons is just too much for even the bravest warriors. No-one would stay to fight, except maybe Bard.

That's a good point, although I'm not convinced it was the primary reason they wanted the bridge gone.

But imagine yourself being a soldier of Lake Town and watching Smaug approach, ablaze and terrifying in all his might. What would you rather have him do? Sweeping down and blasting the town from above, or raiding it on foot?

I for one would much prefer the former. At least you see him coming and have the chance to hide or dive into the water (if available) if his attack looks like it's coming your way. And if you're lucky, his arial assult is directed at another part of town and you get a chance to fire away a few arrows in his direction.

For as The Sixth Wizard notes, no one would dare face him on foot. We don't know exactly how big and strong Smaug was, but we do know he single-handedly wiped out a great dwarven city with plenty of warriors much tougher than the men of Lake Town. There an arial attack would be useless too, as the city was underground. He must have been formidable indeed: the fear and dread of seing him up close would put panic and despair into the most hardy of warriors. And even if Bard and a few stout men would stand to face him it would without doubt avail to nothing, he would've crushed those he didn't roast.

As Davem said, destroying the bridge a better option than not destroying the bridge, although they still had it coming if it wasn't for great luck.

And please StW, don't ask me to explain how they managed to do so. I do not know how they did it, no one here knows. JRRT perhaps had a good idea in his head of how this was done, perhaps he didn't. All we know is what he wrote, and in The Hobbit the bridges of Lake Town were "cut" before Smaug could get there.

[skip spence]

Everyone knows that most if not all dragons have relatively small wings considering their body size, and therefore use a rotary, high-speed and constant wingstroke like a hummingbird or bumblebee to fly. This creates a flying/fighting style that is both humorous and terrifying to behold.
.

'Twas funny at that. Now I have a vivid mental image of a rather fat Smaug with tiny wings buzzing like a bumblebee over the heads of terrified but somewhat giggling villagers :)

[Sauron the White]

from skip spence

And please StW, don't ask me to explain how they managed to do so. I do not know how they did it, no one here knows. JRRT perhaps had a good idea in his head of how this was done, perhaps he didn't. All we know is what he wrote, and in The Hobbit the bridges of Lake Town were "cut" before Smaug could get there.

Well in truth Skip, we have a great deal more than "all we know is what he wrote". JRRT also gave us visuals of his world. In the case of Laketown, the picture that he himself drew clearly shows a rather substantial bridge with many thick pylons supporting it. It is clearly not a suspension bridge or something with ropes holding it up so that it can be quickly "cut".

That same drawing also evidences wide docks that are built along the same lines of the rest of the town. If Smaug wanted to land, and there is no evidence in the text or in drawings that was his intention, he had ample space to do so on the wide docks surrounding Laketown. But he decided not to.

So we do have much more than just what he wrote.

[Rikae]

Well in truth Skip, we have a great deal more than "all we know is what he wrote". JRRT also gave us visuals of his world. In the case of Laketown, the picture that he himself drew clearly shows a rather substantial bridge with many thick pylons supporting it. It is clearly not a suspension bridge or something with ropes holding it up so that it can be quickly "cut".


So, your point is what, exactly? That Tolkien wrote aobut the bridge being cut, but then drew a bridge that didn't look as though it could be cut in order to get his real point - that the bridge was not cut - across?
And you talk about us having faith!

[Sauron the White]

There were bridges in Laketown. Perhaps some of them were strung with rope so that they could be cut. Do not take my heretical word for it as an unbeliever. Use your own powers of observation and look at the Professors own drawing that davem preproduced in this thread. On the far right side is a smaller bridge of far different construction that the chief bridge to the mainland. It appears to more closely resemble the structure of a suspension bridge and may well have ropes which can be cut.

[skip spence]

I don't see how that bridge on the picture could be destroyed very quickly no. As others have pointed out (but you have ignored): JRRTs paintings often contradict his written depictions when it comes to detail. Clearly the bridge on the picture can't be "cut", which is what Bard cries out for in the book. The bridges (note the plural form) JRRT had in mind when he wrote the passage in the book therefore must have been different bridges to the one he painted at another occation.

Tolkien wrote that the bridge or bridges were destroyed quickly and personally I have little difficulty imagining it being done. "It's easy if you try", in the words of John Lennon. Why would you deny yourself the pleasure of it making sense? Or do you perhaps find it more enjoyable to ignore everything that doesn't correlate with your own narrow interpretation of the passage.

And btw, the distance between The Lonely Mountain and Lake Town was rather significant. Although they had little time to destroy the bridge it wasn't a matter of seconds. I would imagine to took Smaug a fair bit of time to reach the town even if he was travelling quickly.

[Sauron the White]

from Skip Spence

I don't see how that bridge on the picture could be destroyed very quickly no.
Very good.

As others have pointed out (but you have ignored): JRRTs paintings often contradict his written depictions when it comes to detail.
The illustration of Laketown contradicts not one single description of it or Laketown in THE HOBBIT. If I missed the description of the main Laketwon bridge as something different that what is shown in JRRT's own illustration, please refer me to the portion of the text.

Clearly the bridge on the picture can't be "cut", which is what Bard cries out for in the book.
My point to the letter. Thank you for supporting it.

The bridges (note the plural form) JRRT had in mind when he wrote the passage in the book therefore must have been different bridges to the one he painted at another occation.
Again, that is the point I made in the post above yours. We agree.


Tolkien wrote that the bridge was destroyed quickly and personally I have little difficulty imagining it being done. "It's easy if you try", in the words of John Lennon. Why would you deny yourself the pleasure of it making sense? Or do you perhaps find it more enjoyable to ignore everything that doesn't correlate with your own narrow interpretation of the event.

I save my faith and belief for things that cannot be validated by more mundane forms of observation and proof. In this case, I need not try at all since this is not a matter of faith or belief. One can see with their two eyes. We have the illustration by JRRT himself. I have to accept that, as its creator and maker, he knew what both Laketown and its main bridge looked like.

[Rikae]

There were bridges in Laketown. Perhaps some of them were strung with rope so that they could be cut.
So now they only cut some of the bridges? Why? You seem bent on making the passage make even less sense than it does to begin with. I can only shake my head...
Do not take my heretical word for it as an unbeliever..
Give it a rest, please. :rolleyes:

[skip spence]

Sauron the White
I give up. In the op you asked us to try to explain why the bridge of Lake Town was destroyed. Yet seemingly you have no interest whatsoever in trying to understand our explanaitions or discussing them and you constantly ignore anything you can't lash out at, often by (I assume) wilfully misrepresenting our arguments.

I promised myself I wouldn't argue with you the other day yet here I am again. But not any longer. Smell you later!

Edit: Perceived insult removed. "Give piece a chance", to once again quote Lennon. ;-)

[Sauron the White]

from skip spence

Sauron the White
I give up. You really are a peace of work, aren't you?

If you are going to try to insult me it might be nice to get the phrase right. Its not peace of work --- its piece of work. I do not remember insulting you. I am merely trying to discuss points you raise in your posts.

from Rikae

So now they only cut some of the bridges? Why?

I would guess that they can only cut which can be cut. Some bridges - the suspension types with ropes - would lend themselves to that procedure. Others - like the main Laketown bridge drawn by JRRT himself - would not lend itself to being cut.

[davem]

The large bridge was cut - Tolkien is clear:

The bridge was gone, and his enemies were on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking. If he plunged into it, a vapour and a steam would arise enough to cover all the land with a mist for
days; but the lake was mightier than he, it would quench him before he could pass through.

You can't get away from the text. "The bridge was cut & his enemies were on an island" cannot be interpreted in any other way than that the big bridge was cut/thrown down.

As to the picture, it is wrong - in Barrels out of Bond we read:

It seemed a town of Men still throve there, built out on bridges far into the water as a protection against enemies of all sorts, and especially against the dragon of the Mountain. From Laketown the barrels were brought up the Forest River. Often they were just tied together like big rafts and poled or rowed up the stream; sometimes they were loaded on to flat boats.


built out on bridges far into the water[ does not conform to the picture, which shows only one large bridge, & Lake Town is hardly 'far out'. Hence, the picture is both correct & not correct (& possibly so is the text). The only explanation I can think of to this dilemma is that Tolkien at some points visualised Esgaroth as being linked to the shore(s) by a number of bridges which could all be cast down (ie they were some form of suspension bridge) & at other points he conceived of it as having one big, substantial bridge

A great bridge made of wood ran out to where on huge piles made of forest trees was built a busy wooden town, not a town of elves but of Men, who still dared to dwell here under the shadow of the distant dragonmountain.

So, there is a single, great bridge built on huge piles of forest trees, which clearly (from the picture) could not be 'cast down' or cut in short order unless it had some form of mechanism built in (possibly of Elvish design???) & at the same time there are a number of bridges which can be cast down - the book seems to contradict itself. Whatever, Tolkien clearly states that when the Dragon attacks the town is an island in deep water, so whether there was one, or many, is not really the issue.

The only possible way of making the two concepts fit is that lake Town was a collection of seperate buildings connected by bridges - but you still have to accept that the big bridge was destroyed in some way because when Smaug attacked it was cut off: 'an island'.

[Morthoron]

Evidently, the folk of Laketown believed that cutting the bridge would either offer protection from Smaug landing, or as davem stated earlier, that cutting the bridge would diffuse the stampeding masses, rather than centralize their egress along one route.

In any case, Smaug did not land, and there was no crush of hysterical refugees flooding the bridge.

[Sauron the White]

davem
I am not arguing that the main bridge was not destroyed. I am saying that it was not one of the bridges which could have been cut because the illustration Tolkien gave us - which is far more detailed than any text description with words - shows a substantial structure built on thick plyons and not a supsension bridge upheld by ropes to be cut.

I think you can question how well this passage was written since JRRT himself says they had "little time" and this main bridge seems to be the type that would take a great deal of effort to not only take down but destroy - and Tolkien seems to think there is a difference.

So, if JRRT says the main bridge was destroyed, then it was destroyed.

This thread was started to question the wisdom of the decision to destroy the bridge as a tactic to fight a fire breathing dragon who is attacking you from the air.

built out on bridges far into the water[ does not conform to the picture, which shows only one large bridge, & Lake Town is hardly 'far out'. Hence, the picture is both correct & not correct (& possibly so is the text).

The picture of Laketown that you reproduced for us shows one angle of Laketown closest to the mainland. Perhaps a more complete aerial view of the entire area would show us something different ... perhaps not. I have no idea and that is all speculation which cannot be proven or disproven. I have no idea what JRRT meant when he used the term "far out" in terms of meters or yards or miles. I also have no idea as to what the exact scale is in the picture. Do you?

So, there is a single, great bridge built on huge piles of forest trees, which clearly (from the picture) could not be 'cast down' or cut in short order unless it had some form of mechanism built in (possibly of Elvish design???) & at the same time there are a number of bridges which can be cast down - the book seems to contradict itself.

Yes, I agree. The picture clearly shows two different kind of bridges.

Whatever, Tolkien clearly states that when the Dragon attacks the town is an island in deep water, so whether there was one, or many, is not really the issue.
Yes. The issue that I began with is that the decision to cast down and destroy the bridge was not a wise one since it meant nothing in stopping a flying fire breathing dragon who was attacking you by air.

The only possible way of making the two concepts fit is that lake Town was a collection of seperate buildings connected by bridges - but you still have to accept that the big bridge was destroyed in some way because when Smaug attacked it was cut off: 'an island'.

As I have said, if JRRT said the bridge was destroyed, then it was destroyed. My main point is that such an action is not the wisest or best tactic employed against a fire breathing dragon attacking you from the air. A different and more minor point was the difficulty - or perhaps impossibility - of actually downing and destroying such a substantial bridge in such "little time" as JRRT says was available to the people of Laketown. However, that is a writing problem. I have no doubt that if this event had happened in LORD OF THE RINGS, it would have been written differently, things explained in more detail, and it would have made much more sense.

Its too bad JRRT never finished his attempt at rewriting THE HOBBIT. Maybe this portion would have been changed. Maybe not.

[davem]

Tolkien's painting of The Death of Smaug shows the great bridge thrown down
http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/8/8e/J.R.R._Tolkien_-_Death_of_Smaug.jpg

Rateliff comments: The decision for Lake Town to have only one great bridge seems to have been determined through the two illustrations Tolkien drew of the scene apparently created over the Christmas 1936 vacation ..... if so the changes in page proof... would have been made to bring the text into agreement with the illustration 'Mr Baggins' p444

So, it seems that the 'bridges' were part of the original conception but that after drawing the pictures Tolkien changes the text - or at least most of it, as there are still references to both Bridge & bridges. Possibly the most important thing is Tolkien's conception of Esgaroth being 'an island' when Smaug attacked. We have an illustration by Tolkien of the Bridge having been thrown down - therefore it was thrown down (even if its not easy to conceive of how it was done). Why? Well, different theories have been put forward & you pays your money & takes your choice.

[Rikae]

I would guess that they can only cut which can be cut. Some bridges - the suspension types with ropes - would lend themselves to that procedure. Others - like the main Laketown bridge drawn by JRRT himself - would not lend itself to being cut.

Yes, I know that is your theory, but again, why? If you expect us to believe they cut only some of the bridges, leaving some intact, you're going to need to explain what possible purpose that would serve - otherwise, the simplest and therefore most reasonable explanation is that all the bridges were cut, regardless of whether the bridge in the illustration looks easy to destroy or not (it isn't a blueprint drawn by an architect, I hope you realize).

EDIT Ah - I see you've abandoned that tactic:
As I have said, if JRRT said the bridge was destroyed, then it was destroyed. My main point is that such an action is not the wisest or best tactic employed against a fire breathing dragon attacking you from the air.
However, I would like to point out that, just slightly earlier in the thread, you did say:
The illustration of Laketown contradicts not one single description of it or Laketown in THE HOBBIT. If I missed the description of the main Laketwon bridge as something different that what is shown in JRRT's own illustration, please refer me to the portion of the text.


Quote:
Clearly the bridge on the picture can't be "cut", which is what Bard cries out for in the book.
My point to the letter. Thank you for supporting it.

So, are you now accepting the idea that the illustration is misleading, by agreeing that all the bridges were cut?

As for the wisdom of the destruction of the bridge -how was Smaug "foiled" if he didn't intend to cross the bridge? Your explanation - that it spoiled some of his fun - indirectly supports the idea that destroying the bridge was a good tactic if you mean that Smaug could have then killed more of the Lakemen... on the other hand, the suggestion that Smaug's intention was to destroy the bridges himself, and his fun was spoiled that way, makes no sense in light of the fact that the next half of the sentence is "and his enemies were on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking." What is your explanation for the inclusion of that phrase?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I would guess that they can only cut which can be cut. Some bridges - the suspension types with ropes - would lend themselves to that procedure. Others - like the main Laketown bridge drawn by JRRT himself - would not lend itself to being cut.

I don't understand the problem you have with the word "cut". . . you dont actually "cut" trees yet we have no problem using the phrase.

Also, I don't know the process of destroying a bridge, but through time it has been done thousands of times in warfare and plenty of time in haste. . .why should one not be able to do it in Lake Town?

[Sauron the White]

Rikae said

So, are you now accepting the idea that the illustration is misleading, by agreeing that all the bridges were cut?

no
Are we clear about that now?

In my last post before this one I said very clearly

I am not arguing that the main bridge was not destroyed. I am saying that it was not one of the bridges which could have been cut because the illustration Tolkien gave us - which is far more detailed than any text description with words - shows a substantial structure built on thick plyons and not a supsension bridge upheld by ropes to be cut.

The quibbling about methodology is a very minor point that some here seem to cling onto like grim death. The point of this thread was a far larger one: when you are being attacked by air by a fire breathing dragon it is not the best course of action, indeed it is foolish, to spend your resources destroying the main bridge to the mainland as it does nothing to defeat the attacker and is in fact limiting your own routes of escape.

If Smaug wanted to go to the ground in Laketown, he had more room on the docksides than he did on the bridge. That is clear from the detailed illustration JRRT himself did of Laketown. However, there was no reason for Smaug to go to the ground in Laketown. In fact, a smart attack strategy dictated just the opposite for Smaug. Use your speed in the air and distance from the people on the ground who are attempting to kill you. Why get closer so they can fight you better? Stay in the air where you have the advantage. Nothing in the text says Smaug intended to land in Laketown.

davem
does that second illustration - the rougher one - show a covered bridge?

from Rune

I don't understand the problem you have with the word "cut". . . you dont actually "cut" trees yet we have no problem using the phrase.

JRRT says that the people of Laketown have "little time" to prepare for Smaug. It makes some sense that you could cut the ropes on a suspension bridge in "little time" and down the bridge. It does not make sense that you could down that much larger bridge regardless of the verb you want to use. Yes, you can cut down a tree. In how much time with a more primitive saw? Now cut down all those thick pillars, or enough of them supporting that bridge. Now go beyond that and destroy it. All in "little time" as JRRT says they had.

It simply is not the best writing in the book. It does not hold up without a ton of other assumptions and a great leap of faith.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

After following this thread with a mixture of amusement and bemusement, I felt I had to toss in my two cents.

I've been an illustrator, and a fiction writer. And I have to say, it's often extremely difficult to put down on paper (or canvas) an image of what one sees in one's head. I suppose that if I had devoted more time to drawing than to writing, I would be better able to render the illustrations, but one does have to make choices. So I went looking, and came across this in Tolkien's letters (#27, to the Houghton Mifflin Company, from 1938, apparently in reference to a request for JRRT to supply drawings of hobbits for use in a future edition of TH):

I am afraid, if you will need drawings of hobbits in various attitudes, I must leave it in the hands of someone who can draw. My own pictures are an unsafe guide.

And, from letter 280 in November 1965:

I do not recollect when the rough sketch of the Death of Smaug was made; but I think it must have been before the first publication, and 1936 must be near the mark. I am in your hands, but I am still not very happy about the use of this scrawl as a cover. It seems too much in the modern mode in which those who can draw try to conceal it. But perhaps there is a distinction between their productions and one by a man who obviously cannot draw what he sees.

Between the two comments (and doubtless others, I was looking specifically for references to either Smaug or Lake Town), I think it's fairly safe to assume that Tolkien did not consider himself a very good artist, and that he had difficulty rendering accurately things that he imagined. It's a tough job. I do think that his art gives the reader a good feel for how he envisioned the things he created in his imagination, but they are more impressionistic than realistic, and I believe he acknowledged this. He also remarks in the first letter that his illustrations in which hobbits are shown are largely "general impressions," and that "the very ill-drawn one in Chapter XIX is a better guide," the "hobbit in the picture of the gold-hoard, Chapter XII, is of course (apart from being fat in the wrong places) enormously too large." Which it is, else Smaug is mighty small for a dragon. All of this, to me, points to one thing: don't use Tolkien's illustrations as hard evidence of how something looked; go with the written story.

That said, it seems to me that cutting the bridges when one is about to be assaulted by an enemy capable of a nasty aerial attack is rather puzzling -- wouldn't that be cutting off one's escape routes as well? But the passage davem quotes, which shows us Smaug's reaction to the cutting/destruction of the bridges, does seem to indicate that the dragon would have liked to have used some sort of ground (or bridge :)) attack. Why this should be so... I certainly can't say, though Smaug does appear to use both methods, else he would not be ensconced in the Lonely Mountain, sitting pretty on his hoard with all the Dwarves driven away. Perhaps he had it in mind to frighten the folk of Lake Town, then set up residence in it until he had driven all the humans away. Or perhaps even his fiery attack is more effective on the ground, because of the closer range. I surely can't say, and it's been a while since my last reading of The Hobbit. But I would agree that it does seem rather a peculiar situation, especially on a cursory examination.

[Bêthberry]

You know, this reminds me of a discussion over another writer's illustration for his work: William Blake's engraving for the poem "Tyger, Tyger". The ferocious tiger, "burning bright" with dread might etc etc has a winsome smile on its face--and it's not a salacious, vicious, smug smile but a really Tony the Tiger happy smile.

Sometimes you have to face the fact that a writer is not as good at drawing as he is at writing and that visual imagination is a different thing than verbal imagination. Was Tolkien's ability as a visual artist as accomplished as his ability in language? Has he been claimed Artist of the Century?

Really, Tolkien is full of anomalies and changes and "niggling" and we get our kicks here coming up with fun hypotheses explaining them all. If the passage makes sense to readers as a written passage, why get nickers all pulled up because the drawing shows discrepancies? At a certain point, the siren call of the drawing led him to depict the place a certain way: the drawing for him became a primary work of sub-creation and not some hand maiden to the text. After all, his writing demonstrates many attributes of Old English style but his art work shows many affinities not to Anglo Saxon art but to contemporary art. It's one of the eccentricities of his genius--and I mean by that his guardian spirit.

EDIT: lol, cross posted with Ibrin

[Galendor]

Is the first part about the wings a joke? It is just that I cannot see how there can be common knowledge about a fable-animal, the descirption of dragons are very different depending on what part of the world you are in and in some places there are no "given" form that the dragon has.

About Smaug needing thermal updrafts: It is a possibility, but would that not limit is mobility? It would be extremely difficult for him to fly away from whatever mountain range he was living by, just like you never see the big vultures of South America very far from the mountains.

Not a joke, given their relatively small wings, dragons must fly like a hummingbird or bumblebee does, with a high-speed rotary wingstroke. Also they have hollow bones for lightness, and very long, sticky tongues for fishing dwarves out of deep holes in the ground. Dragons like Smaug also exude a thick, sticky mucilage from their undersides that allows jewels and other treasure to stick permanently to them. The spot over their heart is mucilage-free, for reasons unknown.

But alas, some dragons are born too fat or become so with age, and must exist as winged but flightless animals, like penguins. Smaug could still fly, but probably not for very long (glycogen depletion would get him in the end, just like it should have poor Gimli). So he wanted the bridge intact so he could waddle into Laketown on his legs and really have his way with the place in a nice slow fashion.

[The Sixth Wizard]

If Smaug wanted to go to the ground in Laketown, he had more room on the docksides than he did on the bridge.

Smaug would not land on the bridge. He would land a sizeable distance (hundreds of metres) out from it, then approach it on land. Smaug would obviously not want to fly at speed into something so flimsy and close to the water. Walking across is a different matter, but he couldn't land on any part of Lake Town because of his velocity and flying style.

Not a joke, given their relatively small wings, dragons must fly like a hummingbird or bumblebee does, with a high-speed rotary wingstroke. Also they have hollow bones for lightness, and very long, sticky tongues for fishing dwarves out of deep holes in the ground. Dragons like Smaug also exude a thick, sticky mucilage from their undersides that allows jewels and other treasure to stick permanently to them. The spot over their heart is mucilage-free, for reasons unknown.

I'd say being so hot would have something to do with their flying ability. Smaug's treasure chamber is hot as I remember, and he could be "quenched" if he were to venture into the lake. A dragon's heat must be connected to its lifeforce/energy (cold blooded?) and would help it lift off the ground. And where in Tolkien's work do we find that Smaug has "relatively small wings"? It is only in his pictures, which, as we have already discussed, are not drawn entirely for accuracy. More for appeal.

If I were to make more speculations about dragon anatomy, they would include the dragons' ability to store energy for long periods of inactivity, which would then be activated in periods of great anger, malicious glee and greed. Dragons sound to me a little like lizards, basking in the sun for energy, which is then stored, and as such living for a long time with little effort. The energy a dragon "basks" in, coincidentally, is derived from the inner fire spirit in the dragon (fea), and partially from stored food energy.

JRRT says that the people of Laketown have "little time" to prepare for Smaug. It makes some sense that you could cut the ropes on a suspension bridge in "little time" and down the bridge. It does not make sense that you could down that much larger bridge regardless of the verb you want to use. Yes, you can cut down a tree. In how much time with a more primitive saw? Now cut down all those thick pillars, or enough of them supporting that bridge. Now go beyond that and destroy it. All in "little time" as JRRT says they had.

Look, if you are going to criticise Tolkien for writing poorly, and your source for this is his own pictures, you're not making sense to me. There is a simple explanation - the picture is fallible, the text is not. Tell me straight; do you agree or disagree with that explanation? Are you trying to say that Tolkien draws more accurately than he writes, or writes according to his drawings? Sauron, you don't have much room to stand here.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

For your delectation, here's an interesting depiction of the dragon, though not drawn by Tolkien, I hasten to say.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/3423071516.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Whether or not the wings shown here are practical for landing on bridges is open to debate.

[Alfirin]

Great dragon. Is that by illustrator Viktor Ambrus? the style seems reminicient.

[Sauron the White]

from the Sixth Wizard
Look, if you are going to criticise Tolkien for writing poorly, and your source for this is his own pictures, you're not making sense to me. There is a simple explanation - the picture is fallible, the text is not. Tell me straight; do you agree or disagree with that explanation? Are you trying to say that Tolkien draws more accurately than he writes, or writes according to his drawings? Sauron, you don't have much room to stand here.

A picture can say a thousand words. The section in the text on the bridge is short and brief. The illustration - by JRRT himself - is very detailed compared to the scant description in the text. And there is nothing in the text which contradicts the illustration. In both it is a heavy wooden bridge. Period

I find it interesting that so many want to ignore or simply pretend that illustration did not exist. It reminds me of songwriter Paul Simons observation:

Simon & Garfunkel "The Boxer"

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

And I love how some here can act as if they are handing down the Truth from the Mountaintop on the anatomy and physics of mythical creatures. Amazing powers indeed.

[Macalaure]

Sauron, one of your main arguments seems to be that, if Smaug wanted to, he could have landed on the docks. Therefore he was not forced to land on the bridge (which nobody claims, but you keep holding on to it nevertheless) or the shore.

I don't think we are given a detailed description of the docks in the text, so the pictures is all we have. I see several problems with Smaug landing on the docks. All of them are not provable, but they should give at least plausibility to Tolkien's claim that Smaug was foiled by the destroyed bridge.

First, although the construction looks stable and certainly carries the weight of the wood houses, we don't know Smaug's weight or landing speed. When he died, the structures didn't support him, so it is possible they wouldn't have supported his landing (or at least Smaug couldn't have been sure whether they would, which is enough).

Second, while the docks look wide enough to provide the space, they are still directly adjacent to the water. As I said earlier, one mis-step and Smaug would end up in the water and his attack would have failed.

Third, keep in mind that Smaug has two wings. One of those would face the houses, and the docks are definitely not wide enough so that this could not have been a problem. Smaug is strong enough to destroy a house, but how much strength does he have within his wing? At the very least, crashing into houses with one wing would have thrown him off balance, which brings us to point two.

I agree that Tolkien isn't very clear, but I wonder whether it would have improved the chapter if he had been clearer. The passage is fast-paced, as is suitable for a dragon attack, and going into details about bridges and landings and the dragon's intention might have made it dull instead of exciting. At any rate, he makes more sense, regarding the intentions of both, Smaug and the Lakemen, than you give him credit for.

You also say that Smaug's attack would be most effective if as an exclusive air attack. You should be aware that this is conjecture. We don't know how effective he would have been on the ground, where his wings were useless, but other strengths could factor in. You say that he would be more vulnerable on the ground, but this is supported only by other conjectures of yours.

An aside question linked to this: I don't think Tolkien ever had somebody attempt to shoot an arrow at a dragon's eye. Does this imply that a dragon in Middle-earth cannot be harmed by this, or that Tolkien didn't think of the possibility? We have, on the other hand, people attempt to shoot arrows at a Mumak's eye.

edit:

And there is nothing in the text which contradicts the illustration.Correction: There is nothing in the text which contradicts the illustration, except for everything that you deliberately choose to ignore. ;)

[Rikae]

I am not arguing that the main bridge was not destroyed. I am saying that it was not one of the bridges which could have been cut because the illustration Tolkien gave us - which is far more detailed than any text description with words - shows a substantial structure built on thick plyons and not a supsension bridge upheld by ropes to be cut.
Then, Sauron, you are still arguing that the picture is misleading; as it not only depicts a bridge that doesn't look as though it can be cut, but one that doesn't look as though it can be destroyed in "little time" at all, something the text tells us was done. So, any way you slice it, either that bridge was destroyed (and the picture is misleading), or it was not (and to make this assumption reasonable, we'd need to explain why only some bridges would be destroyed).

Regarding the idea that Smaug had more advantages in an air attack, consider that his fire-breath was probably not like gunfire from a plane - it would have most likely had a far shorter range. This would mean he would have to fly very close to the town before being able to ignite it, and then would have only had a brief moment to do so before having to veer away to avoid a crash. Also consider that he possessed immense strength and size, as well as a tough hide - features that wouldn't be particularly useful for a predator designed primarily to rely on agility and speed while hunting. Considering this, and also the lack of wings among some dragons and the well-known vulnerability of their undersides (I mean, come on - even hobbits heard about it!), it's quite likely they preferred to attack, in general, from the ground, probably using flight more for transportation and, if it was ever necessary, defense (their underside might be exposed, but if they intended to make a quick retreat rather than an attack, this would present little danger).

[The Sixth Wizard]

For your delectation, here's an interesting depiction of the dragon, though not drawn by Tolkien, I hasten to say.

In that picture, Smaug got pwned. :D

[Galendor]

Smaug would not land on the bridge. He would land a sizeable distance (hundreds of metres) out from it, then approach it on land. Smaug would obviously not want to fly at speed into something so flimsy and close to the water. Walking across is a different matter, but he couldn't land on any part of Lake Town because of his velocity and flying style.

I'd say being so hot would have something to do with their flying ability. Smaug's treasure chamber is hot as I remember, and he could be "quenched" if he were to venture into the lake. A dragon's heat must be connected to its lifeforce/energy (cold blooded?) and would help it lift off the ground. And where in Tolkien's work do we find that Smaug has "relatively small wings"? It is only in his pictures, which, as we have already discussed, are not drawn entirely for accuracy. More for appeal.


I agree, and don't actually think Smaug flew like a hummingbird. He is a magical being, like a Balrog, and not subject to normal physical laws. The text seems to support that his assault on Laketown took the form of repeated long swooping passes (i.e. he could not hover).

The writing supports the notion that Smaug was quite large. When he realized someone (Bilbo) had stolen a piece of his treasure, he "shook the mountain roots" in his rage. When Smaug went looking for the thief, by his own testimony he ate six ponies. When he tried to blast Bilbo with fire as Bilbo escaped running up the secret passage, Bilbo was saved because Smaug's head could not fit into the passage, which was described earlier as being five feet high by three feet broad. So Smaug's head was more than three feet wide.

Considering his head size, Smaug was as big or bigger than a large elephant. That means on all fours he was probably over 12 feet tall at the shoulder and weighs over 7 tons. Despite this mass, he could move quickly on the ground, he could run on all fours. In the chapter "Inside Information" it says: "He thrust his head in vain at the little hole, and then coiling his length together, roaring like thunder underground, he sped from his deep lair through its main door, out into the huge passages of the mountain-palace and up towards the Front Gate."

Although the writing does not explicitly say it, I think Smaug did not want to attempt a landing in Laketown for reasons already pointed out - Laketown might not support his landing force. And Smaug clearly did not want to fall into the lake, as stated that might quench his fire and he did not want that to happen.

Although Tolkein does not explicitly write it, we are given the impression that Smaug is very large, unthinkably strong, fast, and invulnerable over most of his hide. I assume from the description that you certainly do not want to face him on the ground, he would roast you or rapidly run at you and crush you. Hundreds of men, elves, or dwarves could not face him on the ground and survive.

So my impression from reading the story is that by cutting the bridge, Laketown removed any possible way for Smaug to assault by land. It removed an attack option from him. And Smaug was too wise to attempt a landing in Laketown. He was big and flying fast, so his landing might break through the wooden docks (as it did when he fell from the sky in death). I also think it is within the scope of imagination to belive that the Laketowners had built in to the bridge design an ingenious (but admittedly undescribed) mechanism for rapidly dismantelling part of the bridge. There is an engineering solution to almost any construction problem.

[Sauron the White]

from Rikae

Then, Sauron, you are still arguing that the picture is misleading; as it not only depicts a bridge that doesn't look as though it can be cut, but one that doesn't look as though it can be destroyed in "little time" at all, something the text tells us was done. So, any way you slice it, either that bridge was destroyed (and the picture is misleading), or it was not (and to make this assumption reasonable, we'd need to explain why only some bridges would be destroyed).
The picture shows what it shows. Period.
The text says what it says. Period.

If JRRT says the bridge was destroyed, then it was destroyed. If he says the townspeople have very little time to do this in, then they had very little time.

If the description of the bridge and the illustration of the bridge clearly show a bridge which probably cannot be destroyed in very little time - then who is at fault?

Wait I know the answer to that one: ME for pointing it out.

[Eönwë]

I'd say being so hot would have something to do with their flying ability.
Maybe so. Or at least, their flying ability might have had something to do with them making fire. This is just speculation, but maybe Smaug was filled with hydrogen (like a zeppelin), which floats, and can also be used for fire. Which explains why maybe Samug didn't want to launch a chiefly aerial attack: It would be harder for him to fly after all that fire-breathing (or maybe he would sink from decreased levels of hydrogen, annd therefore, floating ability), whereas it would not affect his ability to run away.

[Sauron the White]

from Macalaure

First, although the construction looks stable and certainly carries the weight of the wood houses, we don't know Smaug's weight or landing speed. When he died, the structures didn't support him, so it is possible they wouldn't have supported his landing (or at least Smaug couldn't have been sure whether they would, which is enough).

Realizing this is all supposition and speculation and is far from fact... when Smaug died he was falling straight down - a landing would be at an angle far more friendly to the physics of slowing down..... and there was nothing to slow his fall before hitting those buidings ... a landing on his own would have been significanlty slowed by his own powers.

Second, while the docks look wide enough to provide the space, they are still directly adjacent to the water. As I said earlier, one mis-step and Smaug would end up in the water and his attack would have failed.

And so is the main bridge that so many here seem to think Smaug would have walked across to the town. If I may quote you "one mis-step and Smaug would end up in the water and his attack would have been foiled". That applies to the bridge also. Or do you think a thin railing perhaps three feet high would restrain him if he lost his balance? And from what I can see in the drawing by JRRT, you can make a case that the docks offer a wider space than the bridge.

Third, keep in mind that Smaug has two wings. One of those would face the houses, and the docks are definitely not wide enough so that this could not have been a problem. Smaug is strong enough to destroy a house, but how much strength does he have within his wing? At the very least, crashing into houses with one wing would have thrown him off balance, which brings us to point two.

In the absence of measurements - which nobody has - this is impossible to state either way. Do you know how wide his wings were when outstretched? Do you know how wide the docks were? Do you know the exact configuration of his wings? Do you know anything about the balance problems of a mythical dragon.

You also say that Smaug's attack would be most effective if as an exclusive air attack. You should be aware that this is conjecture. We don't know how effective he would have been on the ground, where his wings were useless, but other strengths could factor in. You say that he would be more vulnerable on the ground, but this is supported only by other conjectures of yours.

No. It is not conjecture that I say Smaug was effective by air. That is a fact since we have the exact words of JRRT who describes his rather lethal attack against Laketown. I am not speculating about what might happen, or what could happen, or giving you some hypothetical situation as what could occur if several factors lined up right - I am simply observing what JRRT tells us happened.

If you think dragons are so effective on the ground and they were such a lethal unstoppable killing machine, perhaps you could also speculate on why Morgoth tried so hard for so long to give them wings. Perhaps the SILMARALLION would tell us that.

In the chapter "Of The Fifth Battle" , the Dwarves of Belegost surround Glaurung attacking him and wounding him badly enough to cause him to flee the battlefield.
A ground attack against a dragon seems to be rather effective if done right.

[Rikae]

If the description of the bridge and the illustration of the bridge clearly show a bridge which probably cannot be destroyed in very little time - then who is at fault?
Everyone but you seems to agree that the drawing - ok, you'll like this - that TOLKIEN is at fault for (*gasp*) making a drawing that is not photorealistic.

However, you seem to just want to make a point along the lines of "Tolkien should never have written that the Lakemen destroyed the bridges at all", correct? Well, I think I've seen an argument elsewhere that might apply.
Have you considered that "The Hobbit" is not a manual on how to conduct warfare, nor is it a historical record or an architectural blueprint for semi-aquatic villages, but a fantasy novel - and that one does not judge a fantasy novel fairly by applying the criteria belonging to books of war strategy, etc.? Have you considered that The Hobbit has been highly successful as a fantasy novel, and is beloved by generations of readers in spite of its... inaccuracies? ;) The verdict of the vast majority of readers of The Hobbit goes against your opinion.

[Rikae]

And so is the main bridge that so many here seem to think Smaug would have walked across to the town. If I may quote you "one mis-step and Smaug would end up in the water and his attack would have been foiled". That applies to the bridge also. Or do you think a thin railing perhaps three feet high would restrain him if he lost his balance? And from what I can see in the drawing by JRRT, you can make a case that the docks offer a wider space than the bridge.


How many times has Macalaure repeated that Smaug would have landed on the ground and walked over the bridge (not including the time he mentions it in the post to which you are replying)? :rolleyes:
Some people did mention the idea of Smaug landing on the bridge, but that was abandoned quite some time ago in favor of the more reasonable theory that he wished to land on the ground and cross the bridge. Why do you keep bringing this up?

[Rikae]

No. It is not conjecture that I say Smaug was effective by air. That is a fact since we have the exact words of JRRT who describes his rather lethal attack against Laketown. I am not speculating about what might happen, or what could happen, or giving you some hypothetical situation as what could occur if several factors lined up right - I am simply observing what JRRT tells us happened.


Interesting, that's exactly what the rest of us are doing when we point out the lines about Smaug being "foiled" and the deep water. For the third (at least) time - how do you explain these lines? And no, I don't mean the "foiled" line taken out of context, but this line as it is in the text, followed by the phrases about the water (which I won't quote, as you can find them above).

If you think dragons are so effective on the ground and they were such a lethal unstoppable killing machine, perhaps you could also speculate on why Morgoth tried so hard for so long to give them wings. Perhaps the SILMARALLION would tell us that.

In the chapter "Of The Fifth Battle" , the Dwarves of Belegost surround Glaurung attacking him and wounding him badly enough to cause him to flee the battlefield.
A ground attack against a dragon seems to be rather effective if done right.
Hmm - in other words, the dragon might, concievably, need to quickly escape his foes? You don't, I notice, compare how much damage Glaurung managed to do from the ground vs. how much Smaug did from the air - nor do you compare the relative ease with which Smaug was killed vs. Glaurung wounded.

[davem]

StW I really think you are placing too much emphasis on the illustrations. Look at this one :
http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/9/97/J.R.R._Tolkien_-_The_Hall_at_Bag-End%2C_Residence_of_B._Baggins_Esquire.jpg

Scale & perspective are simply wrong - the figure of Bilbo is is far too small.

So, forget the illustrations. The facts are

1) originally Lake Town was connected to the shore by a number of bridges which could be thrown/cut down fairly quickly & easily.

2) after the story had been submitted to the publisher Tolkien drew the two pictures I've posted which show a single 'Great Bridge'. The Bridge is, according to the text, very large & broad - certainly large & broad enough for Smaug to cross. Tolkien then changes some references in the text to bring them in line with the drawings - but only to the extent that a single Great Bridge has come to replace a number of smaller bridges, The Bridge on the drawings (as with the drawing of Bilbo above) is not 'to scale'.

3) When Smaug attacks Esgaroth is meant to be cut off ('an island in deep water'). So bridges or Bridge have to be thrown down. Smaug's intent was to enter Lake Town on foot but he couldn't do that & had to resort to an aerial attack, making him vulnerable (Tolkien is clear that his only point of vulnerability is the unprotected spot on his left breast - not his eyes).

4) Tolkien changes from bridges to Bridge & thereby creates a problem for himself in that while its possible to cut the bridges its not possible to cut the Bridge. Tolkien ignores that problem & just states that the bridge is thrown down - & if you insist on playing up the importance of the pictures as evidence (though of what I'm not sure), if you take a look at the painting I posted earlier http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=552471&postcount=91 you'll see quite clearly that (however it was done) the Bridge is very definitely thrown down.

Smaug has to be flying to be killed because his ONLY vulnerable point is ONLY accessible from underneath. Smaug either knows this (maybe he felt a draft on that bit when he moved about), or his preferred method of assault is on foot. It doesn't matter. What we know is he intended to use the Bridge & was foiled when he found it wasn't there & so he was forced into making an aerial assault, & that proved his undoing. Pride cometh before a fall, & all that.....

EDIT You might also want to consider the size of the Black Arrow in the painting to the size of Smaug - the arrow is WAY too big if the painting is to scale...

[Sauron the White]

Rikae
you seem so bent on arguing emotionally with me that you ignore what I actually have written.

Here is what you said

How many times has Macalaure repeated that Smaug would have landed on the ground and walked over the bridge (not including the time he mentions it in the post to which you are replying)?
Some people did mention the idea of Smaug landing on the bridge, but that was abandoned quite some time ago in favor of the more reasonable theory that he wished to land on the ground and cross the bridge. Why do you keep bringing this up?

here is what I replied to Macalaure regarding Smaug and water

And so is the main bridge that so many here seem to think Smaug would have walked across to the town. If I may quote you "one mis-step and Smaug would end up in the water and his attack would have been foiled". That applies to the bridge also. Or do you think a thin railing perhaps three feet high would restrain him if he lost his balance? And from what I can see in the drawing by JRRT, you can make a case that the docks offer a wider space than the bridge.

Please observe that my reply directly discusses the idea of Smaug walking across the bridge and not LANDING ON THE BRIDGE as you seem to think. I do not care if he lands in CHina and then walks all the way to the bridge, he still has to walk across it, is near the same water that Macaulure feels is such a threat to him, and can still make that same misstep that he warns against.

Are you clear on this?

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Smaug's intent was to enter Lake Town on foot but he couldn't do that & had to resort to an aerial attack, making him vulnerable (Tolkien is clear that his only point of vulnerability is the unprotected spot on his left breast - not his eyes).
please.... Please.... PLEASE ...... somebody just quote directly from Tolkien in the text where it clearly says that
SMAUGS INTENT WAS TO ENTER LAKETOWN ON FOOT.
I beg you. I implore you. I humbly ask of you. Show me that in black and white.

Not your suppositions.
Not your conjecturing.
Not your musings.
Not your assumptions.

If you state something so emphatically that it is presented as fact, please present the support in the text for that as a fact.

Otherwise, it is merely your assumption, your belief which you certainly have a right to. You decide to make a deliberate choice to see it that way despite the absence of any clear presentation of that conclusion as a undebateble fact.

[Rikae]

Sauron, if that is what you meant by your reply, than perhaps you are "arguing emotionally", because it doesn't seem you read what Macalaure said.
I see several problems with Smaug landing on the docks.
He wasn't talking about Smaug's ability to walk on the bridges or the docks, but to land on them.

[Sauron the White]

davem
I did not mean to ignore your post with the Bilbo drawing.
I do see what your point is. I would say however, that the accuracy or inaccuracy of one drawing does not either add, validate, deny or invalidate the accuracy of a completely different drawing of a completely different subject.

[Rikae]

Otherwise, it is merely your assumption, your belief which you certainly have a right to. You decide to make a deliberate choice to see it that way despite the absence of any clear presentation of that conclusion as a undebateble fact.
Oh dear - apparently reading comprehension and interpretation of literature at anything other than the most literal, word-for-word level is not allowed! :eek:
Well, that's it - I'm giving up reading in favor of watching Jerry Springer. ;)

[Sauron the White]

Rikae
now you are picking from one section when I clearly replied to his words from a different section as quoted in my post. Why would you do that? It matters not if he lands on the docks, lands on the bridge, lands on the mainland and then walks across the bridge ...... he can be attacked, can make the misstep Macaulure mentions and fall into the water. He does not have to land on the docks for this to happen. Or is it only the docks that present a problem because i mentioned them as an alternative landing area?


Anybody is free to see a problem with Smaug landing on the docks. Fine. But its all conjecture, supposition and guess work based on ...... based on what exactly?
Nobody has measurements regarding
a- Smaug and any part of his body
b- Laketown or any part of its structure

It would seem that before anyone can go making definitive statements about what clearly can and cannot happen and attempt to pass them as factual information, those things are needed.

Nobody has them

[Rikae]

Rikae
now you are picking from one section when I clearly replied to his words from a different section as quoted in my post. Why would you do that?
A tip that may help you read for meaning more effectively in the future:
When a person first says "There are a number of reasons why X might be true... all of them are not provable but...",

and then he follows this statement immediately with a list entitled "First, Second, Third, etc."

it is generally safe to assume that the items in the list are the "reasons" to which he has just referred, rather than some totally unrelated collection of statements.


It would seem that before anyone can go making definitive statements about what clearly can and cannot happen and attempt to pass them as factual information, those things are needed.

Nobody has them
Well, if that's so, it would seem that, from your perspective, there is nothing to discuss. The sensible thing to do, in that case, would be to leave the thread to the foolish people who actually think there is something worth saying about it.

[Sauron the White]

I have no problem at all with anyone presenting ideas or theories or suppositions or assumptions. Until they are presented as facts when they are otherwise.

I did not edit out the First, second , third points of Macaulre but presented them complete. While he was talking about landing on the docks, the same reasoning could have applied also Smaug being anywhere near water where he could misstep. That was my point which I think was a fair one.

If Smaug landed on shore, and walked across the big bridge, is it not realistic to expect that he would be met with hostle action from some of the townspeople trying to stop him? And could not that hostile attack also cause the dragon to "misstep" on that bridge and fall into the very water that he is suppose to fear? I think that is reasonable and that was my point.

[Rikae]

While he was talking about landing on the docks, the same reasoning could have applied also Smaug being anywhere near water where he could misstep. That was my point which I think was a fair one.

Well, this is what you said:
If I may quote you "one mis-step and Smaug would end up in the water and his attack would have been foiled". That applies to the bridge also. Or do you think a thin railing perhaps three feet high would restrain him if he lost his balance?
Here, you ask Mac if he thinks the railing would restrain Smaug if he "lost his balance". Are you arguing that Smaug would be just as surefooted in the process of landing as he would while walking? Sure, that's possible - but the point is, it is also quite possible he wasn't, and the this makes more sense in the light of the text itself.

The bridge was gone, and his enemies were on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking. If he plunged into it, a vapour and a steam would arise enough to cover all the land with a mist for
days; but the lake was mightier than he, it would quench him before he could pass through.

Ok, apparently it is significant (in Smaug's being foiled) that the bridge is gone, so clearly he had plans involving the bridge. What could those plans be?
"His foes were on an island in deep water" - clearly the water is a problem - which it would not be if he preferred to attack by air.
"if he plunged into it" - it appears he has a choice between his plan involving the bridge, risking "plunging into" the water, and what he subsequently does (attack by air).
"it would quench him before he could pass through". Now, there is no sense in saying this unless, were it otherwise, he would try to "pass through" - which means, if the water would not quench him, he would have attempted a land (or water) attack.

Now, this may not be the best possible interpretation of the passage, but I haven't heard a more plausible one proposed.

[Rikae]

If Smaug landed on shore, and walked across the big bridge, is it not realistic to expect that he would be met with hostle action from some of the townspeople trying to stop him? And could not that hostile attack also cause the dragon to "misstep" on that bridge and fall into the very water that he is suppose to fear? I think that is reasonable and that was my point.

I really think you overestimate the abilities of a handful of Lakemen - whatever number could fit on the bridge at once - facing toward Smaug's head (and fire).

[Bêthberry]

I find it interesting that so many want to ignore or simply pretend that illustration did not exist. It reminds me of songwriter Paul Simons observation:

Simon & Garfunkel "The Boxer"

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.



Where was this done, please? Who stated we wanted to ignore the illustration? Who said we should pretend it does not exist?

[Macalaure]

And so is the main bridge that so many here seem to think Smaug would have walked across to the town. If I may quote you "one mis-step and Smaug would end up in the water and his attack would have been foiled". That applies to the bridge also.

Sauron, as Rikae has just stated, landing is by far more difficult than walking. I thought that was too obvious to be pointed out.

In the absence of measurements - which nobody has - this is impossible to state either way. Do you know how wide his wings were when outstretched? Do you know how wide the docks were? Do you know the exact configuration of his wings? Do you know anything about the balance problems of a mythical dragon.

No, I don't. However, I got the feeling his wings weren't the size they are in the picture Esty posted. And if we take a look at the second of Tolkien's pictures that davem posted, and take the measurements suggested there, I see my point backed. I didn't claim that I proved something, in case you forgot, I just pointed out that the inability of Smaug to land in Laketown is plausible.

It is not conjecture that I say Smaug was effective by air.

Of course not. If you would have taken the time to properly read my post, you might even have spotted that I did not claim that. It's conjecture that Smaug's attack was most effective by air. This leaves the possibility that the devastating air attack was not devastating enough to Smaug's liking, which is exactly what the text suggests!

If you think dragons are so effective on the ground and they were such a lethal unstoppable killing machine, perhaps you could also speculate on why Morgoth tried so hard for so long to give them wings. Perhaps the SILMARALLION would tell us that.
-Glaurung conquered Nargothrond on foot.
-The Dwarves, who have more of a resistance to fire (due to armour and nature) than Men, managed to injure Glaurung - under heavy losses.
-An army of walking dragons destroyed Gondolin.
All this they did with unprotected bellies, which makes them less effective ground attackers than Smaug. Glaurung was killed by one of the greatest men in ME-history - who had to hide and surprise-attack him. We are not told that any other dragon has ever lost his life (prior to the War of Wrath, that is).

Again, I did not claim wings are useless to dragons. They add a deadly alternative attack to them, plus the many other benefits like speedy transportation and elevated perspective. Flying makes a dragon more powerful, but it is stated nowhere, I think, that it becomes their chief kind of attack.


please.... Please.... PLEASE ...... somebody just quote directly from Tolkien in the text where it clearly says that
SMAUGS INTENT WAS TO ENTER LAKETOWN ON FOOT.
I beg you. I implore you. I humbly ask of you. Show me that in black and white.

Rikae has just given it. The text says that due to the destroying of the bridges, he was foiled. This directly implies that the bridges had some vital part in the then foiled plans of Smaug. What this vital part is, is left unclear. We suggest that he intended to walk over it. We say that this is the only valid conclusion, because there doesn't seem to be any other conceivable use for it. This is as much of a proof we can give you.

You say it isn't so. If you do not accept it, then what other conclusion do you draw?

[Sauron the White]

from Rikae

Here, you ask Mac if he thinks the railing would restrain Smaug if he "lost his balance". Are you arguing that Smaug would be just as surefooted in the process of landing as he would while walking? Sure, that's possible - but the point is, it is also quite possible he wasn't, and the this makes more sense in the light of the text itself.

Given the age of Smaug, given the number of landings he has executed in his long lifetime, given the very flat and wide nature of the docks..... yes Rikae, I think he would be just as surefooted in landing on the docks as he would walking across a bridge ... and I would add especially a bridge that he would be met with resistance upon.

from Bethberry

Who stated we wanted to ignore the illustration? Who said we should pretend it does not exist?

Several have said to use the text and not the illustrations. Here is a very clear one.

from davem today at 2:12 on this very page

So, forget the illustrations

and from davem yesterday

As to the picture, it is wrong

I am pretty sure that if there was an illustration of 100 townspeople dynamiting the Laketown bridge it certainly would have been used to try and disprove my main point. But since the illustration by JRRT shows a substantial bridge supported by numerous and thick pylons and supports my point that it is not easily thrown down and destroyed we get the convenient call to forget the illustrations.

[Sauron the White]

from Macalaure

Glaurung was killed by one of the greatest men in ME-history - who had to hide and surprise-attack him. We are not told that any other dragon has ever lost his life (prior to the War of Wrath, that is).

Yes, that is true. It is also true that he is one of greatest men in ME history because he did perform that deed. Perhaps if someone in Laketown they would establish their storied reputation? But that is speculation. I find it interesting that some of the topography of Laketown would offer much the same opportunity as was available to Turin. The town had canals and smaller bridges and when Smaug stepped across a smart armed man could have attempted the same thing as Turin did. At least it was possible should the situation present itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron
please.... Please.... PLEASE ...... somebody just quote directly from Tolkien in the text where it clearly says that
SMAUGS INTENT WAS TO ENTER LAKETOWN ON FOOT.
I beg you. I implore you. I humbly ask of you. Show me that in black and white.

Rikae has just given it. The text says that due to the destroying of the bridges, he was foiled. This directly implies that the bridges had some vital part in the then foiled plans of Smaug. What this vital part is, is left unclear. We suggest that he intended to walk over it. We say that this is the only valid conclusion, because there doesn't seem to be any other conceivable use for it. This is as much of a proof we can give you.

You say it isn't so. If you do not accept it, then what other conclusion do you draw?

With all due respect - NO she did not. What she provided was more conjecture and supposition based on how she sees and reads the text. I agree that Smaug had plans for the bridge. What were those plans I do not know. It is possible that he wanted to destroy it himself just for the satisfaction of it. It is possible he saw the bridge as a way to trap hundreds of fleeing people and get them all in one very convenient place. Nothing in the text indicates otherwise. It merely says Smaug was foiled in his plans but we know nothing of what they were.

Although we are told that he greatly enjoyed the game of killing and hunting the people and intended to do that to those who escaped. Perhaps killing those trying to also escape by bridge was just the first round in his cat and mouse game? I really do not know for a fact and neither does anyone else.

[Macalaure]

given the very flat and wide nature of the docksWe seem to have a different kind of perception. If I look at the illustrations, I do not see docks that are very wide. I see docks that, without the houses and the close vicinity to water, would be just wide enough for him to land.

About the picture: If it wouldn't show something which is contradicting to the book, nobody would be willing to discard it. You seem to try to use the picture in order to disprove the book, which is - I'm sorry - ridiculous.

[Rikae]

I agree that Smaug had plans for the bridge. What were those plans I do not know. It is possible that he wanted to destroy it himself just for the satisfaction of it. It is possible he saw the bridge as a way to trap hundreds of fleeing people and get them all in one very convenient place. Nothing in the text indicates otherwise. It merely says Smaug was foiled in his plans but we know nothing of what they were.

Although we are told that he greatly enjoyed the game of killing and hunting the people and intended to do that to those who escaped. Perhaps killing those trying to also escape by bridge was just the first round in his cat and mouse game? I really do not know for a fact and neither does anyone else.

Just one question (and I think I already asked it and didn't get an answer) - if this was the case, how is the fact that his enemies are now "on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking" relevant? Why did Tolkien include that in the second half of the sentence, according to your theory?
Furthermore, why add "if he plunged into it, a vapour and a steam would arise enough to cover all the land with a mist for days; but the lake was mightier than he, it would quench him before he could pass through" if all he had in mind was a cat-and-mouse game involving the bridge (why would there be any question of him "plunging into" or "passing through" the water at all in that case?) Why explain, that is, why he can't risk falling into the water or pass through it, if that were never an issue anyway?

[Quempel]

Why would Smaug need to land at all? I have never understood why he would need to land at all. Of course I am thinking that stealth bombers actually do better in the air than on land. I don't know if that is a fair comparison, but if I could breath fire, destroy towns and fly, I wouldn't be caught walking across a bridge.

[Sauron the White]

here is the description by JRRT in the text

A great bridge made of wood ran out to where on huge piles made of forest trees was built a busy wooden town, not a town of elves but of Men, who still dared to dwell here under the shadow of the distant dragonmountain.

Macaluare asks

About the picture: If it wouldn't show something which is contradicting to the book, nobody would be willing to discard it. You seem to try to use the picture in order to disprove the book, which is - I'm sorry - ridiculous.

You claim that the picture contradicts the text. Could you take the above description by JRRT and explain where it contradicts what he shows in the picture because I see no such problem or difficulty.

from Rikae

Just one question (and I think I already asked it and didn't get an answer) - if this was the case, how is the fact that his enemies are now "on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking" relevant? Why did Tolkien include that in the second half of the sentence, according to your theory?

I have no "theory" about what that passage means.

[McCaber]

On Smaug fearing to cross the bridge:

Well, dragon legs seem very stable and low to the ground. For someone to cause this misstep, he would have to get past the fire-breathing, sharp-toothed, hungry head of the dragon to apply some force to get Smaug off balance. I don't think that Laketown had any warriors with that sort of strength and toughness.

[Sauron the White]

Smaug himself could make a sudden move while under attack and execute that "misstep" all on his own. An arrow in the eye or near it could also cause him to move rather quickly and misstep crashing into the water.

Why could his misstep occur only on the docks and not on the bridge? It would seem that both present the same problem.

[davem]

Why would Smaug need to land at all? I have never understood why he would need to land at all. Of course I am thinking that stealth bombers actually do better in the air than on land. I don't know if that is a fair comparison, but if I could breath fire, destroy towns and fly, I wouldn't be caught walking across a bridge.

Anglo-Saxon warriors rode into battle & then fought on foot. Even against enemy cavalry they would dismount, set up their shield wall & literally stand their ground. You may as well ask why, if they had horses they wouldn't use them in battle. They didn't use them because that wasn't the way they fought. Now, it may well be that Dragons, being originally earth-bound, naturally fought on foot & if they had the option only used their wings to get from A to B....or it may not. The point though, is that the mere fact that dragons had the capability of aerial assault doesn't mean they would choose to fight in that way.

Going back to the first mention of Smaug's attack on the Lonely Mountain we find:

One day he flew up into the air and came south. The first we heard of it was a noise like a hurricane coming from the North, and the pine-trees on the Mountain creaking and cracking in the wind. Some of the dwarves who happened to be outside (I was one luckily a fine adventurous lad in those days, always wandering about, and it saved my life that day) - well, from a good way off we saw the dragon settle on our mountain in a spout of flame. Then he came down the slopes and when he reached the woods they all went up in fire. A Long Expected Party

Smaug flies to the mountain, lands on it, & then comes down the slopes & sets the woods on fire. I take that to mean that he landed & then crawled down. The alternative, that he landed, then took off & flew down to the woods doesn't make sense - why land on the mountain-top at all - why not just fly to the woods directly?

I have no "theory" about what that passage means.

Ok - but what do you think it means?

[Rikae]

You claim that the picture contradicts the text. Could you take the above description by JRRT and explain where it contradicts what he shows in the picture because I see no such problem or difficulty.
That, as you probably well know, is not the part of the text it appears to contradict (that part being the destruction of the bridge in little time).


I have no "theory" about what that passage means.
So you argue against our explanation of the passage by explaining the first part and ignoring the second, about which you have "no 'theory'". Thank you for making that clear.
(Or are you, with the scare quotes, suggesting that you have no 'theory', but rather access to some sort of "fact" about why Tolkien brought up the issue of plunging into the water?)

[Bêthberry]

from Bethberry

Who stated we wanted to ignore the illustration? Who said we should pretend it does not exist?

Several have said to use the text and not the illustrations. Here is a very clear one.

from davem today at 2:12 on this very page



So, forget the illustrations

I am pretty sure that if there was an illustration of 100 townspeople dynamiting the Laketown bridge it certainly would have been used to try and disprove my main point. But since the illustration by JRRT shows a substantial bridge supported by numerous and thick pylons and supports my point that it is not easily thrown down and destroyed we get the convenient call to forget the illustrations.

Hmmm. Hummm. Harrroooom. Let us not be hasty in condemning these calls about the reliablity of the pictures. You seem to have overlooked some of the reasons given.

davem points out that perspective is wrong in one illustration.

Tiny Bilbo (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=552575&postcount=112)

Perhaps the next step is to examine and cross examine all of Tolkien's illustrations to see if this characteristic is present in the entire spectrum of Tolkien's illustrations. And then we could discuss the merits of perspective per se. But davem's call was based on some evidence.

Ibrin provides a quotation from Tolkien himself, from the Letters:

My own pictures are an unsafe guide. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=552491&postcount=95)

That tag for the link is a quotation from Tolkien; Ibrin says it is in Letter #27. Perhaps someone could check to verify if she has quoted it correctly and fairly and within context? I'll reiterate the full quotation from Tolkien just so we can see what reason she offerred for suggesting that the illustrations do not have authorial authority:


I am afraid, if you will need drawings of hobbits in various attitudes, I must leave it in the hands of someone who can draw. My own pictures are an unsafe guide.

Oh, but wait! This was written in relation to Tolkien's ability to draw hobbits, not in relation to his ability to draw landscapes. Funny, I seem to recall several of Tolkien's landscapes which lack perspective or depth. But perhaps we need an Art Historian to provide a reliable evaluation of Tolkien's illustrations, as the man himself obviously was too humble and modest about his talents.

So therefore, based on the examples of these two posters, davem and Ibrin (the latter of whom StW completely ignored) would appear that the arguments of only one person at least fall into this category:


It reminds me of songwriter Paul Simons observation:

Simon & Garfunkel "The Boxer"

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.



And as for Boxers and Dragons, well, let us enjoy ourselves with contemplating these possibilities:


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/MimsyBorogroves/boxersdragon.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/MimsyBorogroves/boxersdragon3.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/MimsyBorogroves/boxersdragonwelsh.jpg

[Rikae]

Why could his misstep occur only on the docks and not on the bridge? It would seem that both present the same problem.
Who said that? What was said was that it would be more likely to occur during landing than while walking.

[Rikae]

Smaug flies to the mountain, lands on it, & then comes down the slopes & sets the woods on fire. I take that to mean that he landed & then crawled down. The alternative, that he landed, then took off & flew down to the woods doesn't make sense - why land on the mountain-top at all - why not just fly to the woods directly?

Excellent point. Not to mention that "came down the slopes" doesn't sound the least bit like it describes flight.

[Macalaure]

You claim that the picture contradicts the text. Could you take the above description by JRRT and explain where it contradicts what he shows in the picture because I see no such problem or difficulty.Like I said before, you're only regarding the quotes that support your view and disregard everything else.

The view I (and almost all others) presented is the only plausible one, despite all you said. If your only point is that no statement can be made, and that Tolkien isn't beyond all contrivable doubt clear in what he says, then have it.

[Sauron the White]

davem & others
the faults on one picture do not apply to the picture of a different subject.

The behavior of Smaug - and some of that behavior is inferred by you - does not mean he behaved like that in each and every case.

One does not prove or disprove the other.

You push on my meaning of this ... okay .... your wish is my command

what does this mean

"on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking"

It means that Smaug did not like water. So its easy to then see that he would want to be as far away from it as possible. Thus, an attack for the air was his preferred mode of attack and would not land being closer to the water.

Happy now?

[davem]

It means that Smaug did not like water. So its easy to then see that he would want to be as far away from it as possible. Thus, an attack for the air was his preferred mode of attack and would not land being closer to the water.

Happy now?

Amid shrieks and wailing and the shouts of men he came over them, swept towards the bridges and was foiled! The bridge was gone, and his enemies were on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking.


In what way, then, was he 'foiled' by the destruction of the bridge(s)? The implication is that he couldn't get to his 'enemies' as he first intended - because they were on an island in deep water.

[Macalaure]

"on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking"

It means that Smaug did not like water. So its easy to then see that he would want to be as far away from it as possible. Thus, an attack for the air was his preferred mode of attack and would not land being closer to the water.

Happy now?You are aware that that quote comes after Smaug found the bridges destroyed? Therefore, it was his preferred mode of attack after whatever mysterious mode of attack he had in mind before. You will find nobody disagreeing on that.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

In what way, then, was he 'foiled' by the destruction of the bridge(s)? The implication is that he couldn't get to his 'enemies' as he first intended - because they were on an island in deep water.

As I have said in several places here, because JRRT does not tell us in what Smaug was foiled in, its all conjecture and speculation. What is my speculation?
Smaug could have intended to destroy the bridge himself for sheer enjoyment and was thus foiled in that plan.
Smaug could have intended to trap fleeing townspeople on the bridge and had hopes of incinerating many with one quick blast and was foiled in that plan.

And, as I have repeatedly said, if it was his intention to go on the island he had ample space on the docks which are clearly even wider than the bridge. He did not do so.

You infer that he intended to cross the bridge to justify the order to destroy the bridges. Even though that order is somewhat silly and poor military strategy against a fire breathing creature who is attacking you from the air.

Its poorly, planned out and poorly written. Burn me at the stake for that. I have no doubt that if this were LOTR, JRRT would have fully fleshed it out so that it made sense.

[McCaber]

I'd rather have a dragon attack from the air where he can only burn. On the ground he can burn the same buildings as from the air, destroy them directly, and feed on the townsfolk.

[Rikae]

from davem
As I have said in several places here, because JRRT does not tell us in what Smaug was foiled in, its all conjecture and speculation. What is my speculation?
Smaug could have intended to destroy the bridge himself for sheer enjoyment and was thus foiled in that plan.
Smaug could have intended to trap fleeing townspeople on the bridge and had hopes of incinerating many with one quick blast and was foiled in that plan.
And, as several people have repeatedly said, this THEORY completly ignores the second half of the passage.
And, as I have repeatedly said, if it was his intention to go on the island he had ample space on the docks which are clearly even wider than the bridge. He did not do so.
And you have been repeatedly told why you cannot base such an assumption on the picture alone, especially where the text would suggest otherwise.

You infer that he intended to cross the bridge to justify the order to destroy the bridges. Even though that order is somewhat silly and poor military strategy against a fire breathing creature who is attacking you from the air.
One thing you forgot to mention - he actually attacked from the air after the bridges were destroyed, and after he was oh-so-mysteriously foiled by this. While the bridges were being destroyed he was getting from point A to point B through the air.

Its poorly, planned out and poorly written. Burn me at the stake for that. I have no doubt that if this were LOTR, JRRT would have fully fleshed it out so that it made sense.
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Excuse me for not burning you at the stake, but I have a five page essay on Browning due yesterday and three misbehaving children to deal with, so you'll just have to go without your martyrdom for the time being. ;)

[Sauron the White]

It is foolish to go back and forth on this since we obviously see this so very very differently. We are repeating ourselves over and over again.

I do not see things your way. I do not see these things the way that you do. I do not make the same assumptions that you do. I do not make the same inferences that you do. You are willing to make jumps in reason and supposition that I am not willing to make. Where you see sense - I see nonsense.

[Bêthberry]

After all this downing of the Bridge, I hope you won't be drowning in the Browning paper, Rikae.

yes indeed; it's not The Boxer; it is The Dangling Conversation.

But I did appreciate the small refrain of Bridge Over Troubled Waters which two of our members played.

And I want everyone to know that I could not find one pair of Lord of The Rings boxers. I found Star wars ones, and Harry Potter ones, and Shrek ones, but not one having anything to do with Tolkien. The Welsh dragon was the closest.

[Rumil]

Evenin' all,

at the risk of putting the cat firmly back amongst the pigeons (or should I say Dragon amonst the Lakemen), I believe the bridge as shown in the drawing of Laketown (somewhere a few pages ago, you know, the first one) is easily 'cut-able'.

From the side view illustration the bridge seems impressively stoutly constructed. However, no top-view is shown. Therefore it is as likely as not that the 'road surface' along the bridge is made of big planks (I can see no other practical alternative). By all means good solid planks the size of railway sleepers indeed, but planks all the same.

Now IF these are laid across the supporting beams and not 'tied in' to the rest of the structure by being jointed or nailed (which is, I think, entirely plausible, for obvious defensive purposes), then you could quite easily get a gang of chaps, or indeed chapesses, to lever them up with crowbars and chuck them over the side of the bridge. One could even simply drag the planks back to the town-end if desired.

Although this would not stop individual people precariously making their way across the framework in single file (such as at Worcester in 1651), I think that it would make it very difficult for Smaug to get across. Therefore the bridge would be 'cut' (in the same way as one 'cuts' a road) and the bridge planks would be 'thrown down'. Et voila! From Smaug's point of view the town is now effectively an island.

PS. Is someone running this thread for a bet? ;)

[Morthoron]

After all this downing of the Bridge, I hope you won't be drowning in the Browning paper, Rikae.

Personally, I am hoping for an abridged version of this whole conversation.

yes indeed; it's not The Boxer; it is The Dangling Conversation.

But I did appreciate the small refrain of Bridge Over Troubled Waters which two of our members played.

Not wishing to go too far afield, but I saw Simon and Garfunkel on their reunion tour in the mid-90's, and I will say that it is one of the best concerts I've ever seen. Garfunkel's rendition of BOTW was great! So was Scarborough Fair.

And I want everyone to know that I could not find one pair of Lord of The Rings boxers. I found Star wars ones, and Harry Potter ones, and Shrek ones, but not one having anything to do with Tolkien. The Welsh dragon was the closest.

Ummm...would Hobbitish underwear be described as briefs?

Sorry for the digression from this fascinating discussion, but I said all that was necessary regarding this diatribe many posts ago (from my point of view, of course).

[Estelyn Telcontar]

It is foolish to go back and forth on this since we obviously see this so very very differently. We are repeating ourselves over and over again.

I quite agree - you have repeated your standpoint often enough to hammer it firmly into the heads of all other members. Others have valiantly attempted to make points for other views. All that can be said has been said. Only one thing is lacking - humour! Several posters have attempted to add a light-hearted, friendly tone of conversation, unfortunately without success in getting the general discussion away from embittered battling.

How about if I move this thread to the Mirth forum so that it loses the rancour?! :Merisu:

[The Sixth Wizard]

Ummm...would Hobbitish underwear be described as briefs?

I think they would wear more in the way of "shorts".
*artificial laughter*

Of course, hobbit women would be wearing their "smalls"!
*raucous artificial laughter*

Esty:

YES!

[alatar]

I'd like to thank whomever posited the observation that Smaug may not have wanted to attack the city entirely from the air, but as there was no bridge or boat to get him to the city, he was forced into plan B, namely to burn the city and hope that the treasures therein would somehow be salvageable. He may even have let some persons go, as they would do the hauling for him for cheap, and when the treasures reached the shore, later he could gather them up along with a snack or two.

Anyway, I finally figured out how the bridge was brought down, and had to look no further than LotR. What aquatic creature was typically found living outside dwelling places which existed that could rip down large wooden structures in seconds? Why, it's the Watcher in the Water!

Why couldn't the Laketown persons, like the Morian orcs, have entered into contract with a cousin of said creature? It could feed on any garbage or other stuff dropped down to it, and in return it would guard the bridge. Surely you didn't think that Bard and a few stout fellows were all that protected the town?

When Smaug appeared, the creature could have easily thrown down the bridge and then hid in the safety of the deep water, 'cleaning up' those Laketown persons that were 'sinkers.'

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

If one can reason witha creature like the watcher, then there is nothing speaking against your theory.

The thing is that we have absolutely no reason to think that there was such a creature, if there was then it would have been mentioned. I am absolute confident that if they brought down the bridge in some amazing or elaborate way, then it would have made the story.

Since we are not told about it on has to assume that it was done in a relatively normal and uninteresting way. . . as I said before: Bridges are often thrown down, just because a bridge looks solid it does not mean that it has to take a very long time.

We know that the bridge Turin let build was impossible to destroy in a hurry as it was hughe and made of stone, much unlike the bridge if Esgaroth. Their bridge was wooden and seemingly not amazingly big, Actually the fact that Tolkien points out that the bridge over the Narog is difficult to tear down, sugest that normally throwing down a bridge was not very difficult.

[alatar]

If one can reason witha creature like the watcher, then there is nothing speaking against your theory.
It should be obvious that one can reason with such a creature. It was stationed to guard the west gate of Moria, when surely it would have chosen a more fruitful path to trap (i.e. no Dwarves for 30 years!). One doesn't subsist on holly berries alone...and it had the wit to attack Frodo Ringbearer first, knowing that it too could be a Ringlord if it claimed the Ring.

"I will flood all of Middle Earth and make it a large pond. All will bow down to me and drown in despair (and all of that water)!"

And just what was the origin of said Watcher? Melkor can mock, not create, and so to make a Watcher, he started with a Washer of the Water, which was a cheery creature that would scrub the undersides of Elven boats that they might not mar or stain the beaches or docks of fair Avallónë.

The thing is that we have absolutely no reason to think that there was such a creature, if there was then it would have been mentioned. I am absolute confident that if they brought down the bridge in some amazing or elaborate way, then it would have made the story.
Whoa there. Everyone's been positing a way to bring down a long large wooden bridge, and yet the mechanism is not defined. How does anyone therefore know conclusively how it was done? Have I violated any of the text? Surely the Master and only a few others knew of the creature and of its special role in the last defense of the town, as we all know that treachery has sunk more than one city. And if you had a Watcher under your bridge, would you tell everyone? Bad for trade and all that.

Surely Tolkien didn't take the time to detail the creature or the mechanism as it would have slowed the story and all. There's that pacing thing.

Since we are not told about it on has to assume that it was done in a relatively normal and uninteresting way. . . as I said before: Bridges are often thrown down, just because a bridge looks solid it does not mean that it has to take a very long time.
But how fun of a discussion does that make for? On the other hand, being too silly, as the above, may make the thread uninteresting as well.

We know that the bridge Turin let build was impossible to destroy in a hurry as it was hughe and made of stone, much unlike the bridge if Esgaroth. Their bridge was wooden and seemingly not amazingly big, Actually the fact that Tolkien points out that the bridge over the Narog is difficult to tear down, sugest that normally throwing down a bridge was not very difficult.
If only Turin et al had Trolls, or Giants, with lasers...;)

[skip spence]

..and it had the wit to attack Frodo Ringbearer first, knowing that it too could be a Ringlord if it claimed the Ring..

Maybe it was just a mistake from the beginning? Through the dark and murky waters the Washer might have mistaken Frodo for a mop with that wooly hair and all. He was merely trying to clean up his pond.

[Morthoron]

To sum things up, I'd like to offer a recitation from Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy album:

I'm just trying to find the bridge...

Has anybody seen the bridge?

Have you seen the bridge?

I ain't seen the bridge!

Where's that confounded bridge?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

So Alatar, lets say the watcher is unhappy with the number of dwarves he can eat at the gates of Moria. . . what does he do? For me it seems that these kind of creatures has a very limited habitat and no great possibilities of migrating.

It attacks Frodo first, but you and I know that the orcs of Moria had no idea the fellowship was comming therefor they could not tell the watcher what to look out for.

How do you suppose the master would keep it from everybody else that a humongous creature was living under the town? How would he "reason" with it and not reveal it? Anyways it needed not be bad for buisness if there was a Watcher that could be reasoned with, that would only increase the safty of Esgaroth and make it a better place for trading.

I appologise for not having quoted you in my reply, but it seemed like an awful work. . . . anyways In Conclusion: I am correct and win!

[Eönwë]

I am absolute confident that if they brought down the bridge in some amazing or elaborate way, then it would have made the story.

The Lord of the Bridge

Characters: The watcher's third cousin, twice removed

[Nerwen]

Anyways it needed not be bad for buisness if there was a Watcher that could be reasoned with, that would only increase the safty of Esgaroth and make it a better place for trading.

In fact it could become a tourist attraction...

[skip spence]

Not so sure about that.

I can see trouble with the whole arrangement too. Just imagine the watcher grabbing some kid with a toy ring and hoisting him up the air while his mother on the bridge cries: "Try to reason with it, dear!"

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Not so sure about that.

I can see trouble with the whole arrangement too. Just imagine the watcher grabbing some kid with a toy ring and hoisting him up the air while his mother on the bridge cries: "Try to reason with it, dear!"

but if the watcher graps a child like that then it surely cannot be reasoned with. . . and Alatar's idea based on the assumption that it can be reasoned with.

[skip spence]

But that's faulty logic my friend. People can be reasoned with (sometimes) but do occationally grab kids nonetheless. ;)

[Nerwen]

Obviously, tourists would have to sign an indemnity waiver. Like this:

INDEMNITY/WAIVER

Acknowlegement of Risk and Release of Liability by Participants in respect of Tour Activities provided by Watcher Tours, Esgaroth.

The following waiver of all claims, release from all liability, assumption of all risks, agreement not to sue and other terms of agreement are entered into by me ( the “participant”) with and for the benefit of WATCHER TOURS, its owner(s), employees, volunteers, business operators and agents (the “Host”).

I the undersigned
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

Having carefully read and understood this waiver before participating in Tour Activities, hereby declare:

1. I am aware that there are inherent dangers, hazards and risks ( “Risks” ) associated with Tour Activities ( “Tour Activities” ) and injuries resulting from the “Risks” are a common occurrence. I am aware that the “Risks” of “Tour Activities” mean those dangerous conditions which are an integral part of “Tour Activities”, including but not limited to:

A. The propensity of the Watcher to behave in ways thet may result in injury, harm or death to persons, other animals or objects;
B. The unpredictability of the Watcher’s reaction to such things as sounds, sudden movement, tremors, vibrations, unfamiliar objects, persons or other animals;
C. The inherent danger that the Watcher poses for persons, other animals and objects;
D. The potential for other participants and other persons to behave in a negligent manner that may contribute to injury to themselves or others (inc. casting stones into the water in the vicinity of the Watcher).

2. I freely accept and fully assume all responsibility for all “Risks” and possibilities of any or all personal injury, death, dismemberment, damage to property (inc. sliming of garments) or loss resulting from my participation in “Tour Activities”.

3. I agree to release and forever discharge WATCHER TOURS ( the "Host" ) from all liability for personal injury, death, dismemberment damage to
property, or loss resulting from my participation in “Tour Activities” due to any cause.

4. I agree that this waiver and all terms contained herein are governed exclusively and in all respects by the laws of the Town of Esgaroth in which the “Tour Activities” are provided by the “Host”. I hereby irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Town of Esgaroth and I agree that no other court, whether of Men, Elves, Dwarves or Hobbits can exercise jurisdiction over the terms and claims referred to herein. Any litigation to enforce this waiver will be instituted in the Town of Esgaroth in which the “Tour Activities” are provided by the “Host”.

4. I confirm that I have reached the age of majority for my species.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED AT _______________ THIS_______________ DAY
OF_________________


______________________ _____________________ _____________________
PARTICIPANT ( Client ) PARTICIPANT ( observer ) HOST ( Witness )




I, the undersigned, (Full names)
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

In my capacity as parent/legal guardian* of the above participant, agree to the said minor participant taking part in Watcher Viewing, on the above mentioned dates and agree that the said minor shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this indemnity.

________________________________
PARENT/LEGAL GUARDIAN
(* Delete which is not applicable)

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

But that's faulty logic my friend. People can be reasoned with (sometimes) but do occationally grab kids nonetheless. ;)

not faulty logic at all, just a question of perspektive and definition. . .Anyays I can see on your location that you cannot be reasoned with :p

[alatar]

To segue back to the topic of the thread, while thinking about the Washer under the Bridge, I still think that Smaug wanted mostly to attack Laketown via the bridge. My argument turns on one item: Does Smaug know that he has a hole in his armoured belly?

What if he did know? Wouldn't he want to protect himself from attack from below? If he could march, or stomp, across the bridge, attack from below would be highly unlikely as there was no place for a Turin to stand as there is no understructure to the bridge. By collapsing the bridge, the Master forced Smaug to the air, which presented his Achilles heel, or belly, to attack (still however unlikely).

If he didn't know, well, I'm not sure that my argument falls down like so much bridgework, but it doesn't help it either.

[Bêthberry]

I wouldn't be surprised if fairly soon a flying skwerl decended upon this thread, one whose armour is made invincible by the calm reason and astute good sense of She Who Wields Them.

alatar's idea of the water monster immediately brought to mind some of the more mythic possibilities of this scene. We've been treating the event as a military operation with feats of engineering, but of course story telling isn't limited to historical referents.

This scene, this battle, this event is of mythological proportions. A marauding, vengeful, fire breathing, terrifying dragon--also known as a night scather in Beowulf-- is defeated by coming down off the Mountain and engaging in battle in a sacred centre, isolated from the rest of the world, surrounded by deep and dark waters which the dragon isn't too keen on.

The mythic centre must be approached hierarchially. Movement is from up, top, to a downwards spiral, defeat being final placement in the dark underworld, this time, the dark waters of the lake. The bridge, a liminal object which bridges life and death, periphery and centre, as in Ragnarok (where the mythic centre is heaven in that mythology), must be destroyed for the essential symbolic homology to be developed. In Norse mythology, the breaking of the bridge Bifrost signals the end of time. Here, it is the end of the dragon's time. Sometimes bridges are for crossing, sometimes they are for burning. The realms of the shore and of the town must be separated, the gap that had been closed must be re-opened for the significance on which the story depends.

After all, this entire story of the cup stolen from the treasure hoard and the vengeful dragon seeking retaliation comes from one of Tolkien's favourite poems, Beowulf. We would do well to remember some of Tolkien's own ideas about monsters before we reduce the story to simply a matter of how did the bridge collapse. Might as well ask how Brifrost crumbled.

oh, and, by the by, Smaug's tail was also profoundly dangerous.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Warning - skwerlz can find their way to Sweden and Denmark and to much farther locations if necessary. After all, their fearless leader (= princess) is located quite centrally in Germany! ;)

Now that this thread has lightened up so much, perhaps we should tie it back down to earth with posts that have something to do with the actual topic. If I have time soon, I may split it for the enjoyment of those who would like to continue along the humorous line of thought.

Posts that are completely off-topic will be deleted without further notice.

[alatar]

"Throwing down" bridges seems to be a common human activity, it seems. Remember, after the Nazgul cross the Anduin at Osgiliath, Boromir and crew throw down that bridge (as he recounts during the Council of Elrond), the last bridge that was used to cross the river. How was this done? One would think that a city built with a river running through it would have substantial bridges between the two halves.

And yet they fell.

**And yet we know that this was folly as (1) Sauron wasn't really attacking at the time, just didn't have the money to pay the toll for all Nine Nazgul, and so feinting with a large force did the trick and (2) we all know about the sewer system (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=482670&postcount=1) that runs beneath the river, as shown by Peter Jackson, and so the bridgeless river was of little defense.

[Nazgûl-king]

Perhaps it was a common protocol when dealing with dragons to get rid of the bridge, after what happened at Nargothrond with Glaurung. Perhaps they just felt a little safer knowing that the dragon could not come at them from that way.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Amid shrieks and wailing and the shouts of men he came over them

Whoa, Sam, stop. Your legs are short, so stop and think! Why must the men of Lake Town chop down their path of escape?

Panic, I suppose...

"Sir! We're under attack from a flying dragon!" - Twitching guard.
"Down with da bridge! Down with da bridge!" - Screaming sergeant
"Its a Flying Dragon, Sir!" - Twitching guard
"Down with da Bridge! Down with da Bri..." - Screaming sergeant

[LadyBrooke]

*Timidly pokes head in*

Looking at the picutre of the one bridge, it seems to me there is one other solution that nobody has mentioned yet. The half closest to the town is very strong and thick looking, but as it gets closer to the shore it gradually becomes smaller. I live about 20 miles from one of the biggest rivers in the country, and there are several old bridges near here. When one of them became too run down to be useable instead of destroying the whole bridge (which would have been costly and dangerous due to the large pillars) they only destroyed the smaller end sections which kept anybody from driving onto it.

Assuming that the bridge in the picture is over a mile long, it seems to me that just destroying the end closest to the shore would have prevented Smaug from walking over it. Laketown might as well be an island if the first fifth of the bridge is missing.

*pulls head back quickly*

[Nazgûl-king]

It says in The Hobbit, that:

Amid shrieks and wailing and the shouts of Men he [Smaug] came over them, swept towards the bridges and was foiled! The bridge was gone, and his enemies were on an island in deep water - too deep and dark for his liking. If he plunged into it, a vapor and a steam would arise enough to cover all the land with a mist for days; but the lake was mightier then he, it would quench him before he could pass through.

So it seems to me from this that they destroyed the bridge to force the dragon in the air, denying him access to the bridge. Perhaps they hoped that they could knock him out of the sky into the water perhaps hoping that such a fall would be enough to harm the dragon.

[alatar]

Maybe the men of Laketown heard the voice of Ulmo in the waters around their town, and Ulmo knew that the dragon's weak spot was underneath, and as Laketown never sported underwater warriors with spear guns, knew that they'd better get that dragon up somewhere where its belly would become exposed.

"The dragon doth brawl until the Bridge doth fall..."

It's all prophetic.