Why destroy Laketown's bridge?

[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.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

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"?

[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):

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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...

[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]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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).

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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).

[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]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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.