Why destroy Laketown's bridge?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by STW

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.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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!
Well, that's it - I'm giving up reading in favor of watching Jerry Springer.

[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.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

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.

[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...