Why destroy Laketown's bridge?

[Galendor]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

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).

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Galendor

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.

[Galendor]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

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]

Originally Posted by StW

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.

Originally Posted by Galendor

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.

Originally Posted by StW

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.



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:

Originally Posted by Sauron

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.

[Galendor]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by STW

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.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

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.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Galendor

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]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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...

Originally Posted by STW

Do not take my heretical word for it as an unbeliever..

Give it a rest, please.

[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'.

[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.

[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.