Why destroy Laketown's bridge?

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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:

Originally Posted by STW to Mac

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]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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).

[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.

[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.