Why destroy Laketown's bridge?

[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.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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]

Originally Posted by Sauron

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.

Originally Posted by Sauron

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.

Originally Posted by Sauron

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!

Originally Posted by Sauron

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.

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?

[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.

[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 Sauron the White

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)?
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?

[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?

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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).

Originally Posted by STW

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 :


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/showpos...1&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...

[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.