Why destroy Laketown's bridge?

[Sauron the White]

In THE HOBBIT, in the chapter Fire and Water, the people of Laketown are alerted to the coming of Smaug. They begin preparing for him and one of the things they do is throw down and destroy the bridge to the land?

Why would they do this? Smaug flies. He does not need a bridge to walk across the way some land based invaders would need it. Are not the people of Laketown cutting of their fastest way of their own retreat? Does Smaug need the bridge to land upon? If so there would be other areas of Laketown suitable for that purpose including some of the larger buildings. And then it brings up the questions of size regarding both the dragon and the bridge. In a pre Industrial society, how does a group of people quickly destroy a large bridge in what JRRT describes as "little time".

Could somebody explain this?

[alatar]

Maybe they were prepared for any type of land invader, and so designed the bridge to be 'thrown down' easily. This would be a nice security device.

And how much did they know of Smaug? From the histories that they may have learned from the elves, removing the bridge as a means of access may just have been prudent, as would have been helpful at Nargothrond when Glaurung came calling.

Was Smaug more birdlike or more like a helicopter? What I mean is that I don't see the old worm perching on the weather vane of the tallest building in Laketown. He may have needed some space to land, and that space may not have been available. Would he have come down anywhere, unsure whether the structure would hold him, not knowing if he were going to soon test his swimming skills?

Just some thoughts.

[Sauron the White]

Regarding him needing space to land. I tend to agree. However, there were some sizable buildings in Laketown and - while not on the weather vane - the roof area would probably be amply suited to his landing or at least hopping onto and quickly off again. But even if that were not the case, any water based town has docks for the loading and unloading of supplies. Every dock area I have seen is at least as wide as a bridge. So perhaps Smaug could have landed there. Of course, all this brings up the question of the size of Smaug, his comparison to the landing abilities of a plane versus a helicopter, and the technology necessary to quickly destroy a bridge.

JRRT does the bridge destruction almost as a throw away passing phrase without any detail or explaination. Its very confusing.

I just do not get the necessity of destroying a bridge to stop a dragon who is flying at you.

[skip spence]

Now, it was many years since I read The Hobbit (too many) but destroying the bridge makes a lot of sense to me. In fact, the only reason they built the town on the lake and not next to it was because of the dragon. Although the inhabitants of lake town didn't have any experience of dragons themselves, their not-so distant ancestors did and it was dire, as Smaug brought complete ruin to Dale.

Of course, had Smaug been able to land in the middle of Lake Town, destroying the bridge would've made no sense, as you pointed out. We'll have to assume he couldn't. I guess there would've been too many rooftops, towers, canals and such, for him to make a safe landing. Furthermore, Smaug would've been afraid to get wet and cool down, which would've made him less potent. If he tried to land on a rooftop it might have collapsed, causing him to plunge into the water. In fact, since Lake Town was built as it were in order to offer protection against Smaug, the constructors would have made sure there wasn't any place for him to land safely.

And if we assume Smaug couldn't land on Lake Town, it's clear why destroying the bridge makes sense. Had he been able to land on the shore and cross the bridge on foot, he would have smashed the town to smithereens and killed everyone foolish enough to defend it without any doubt. A known fact about dragons is their soft belly, and Bard was able to slay Smaug only because the arrow came from underneath. With his belly firmly on the ground, a great drake like Smaug is nearly invincible, and the defenders of Lake Town would stand no chance had he been able to cross the bridge.

[Sauron the White]

Of course, had Smaug been able to land in the middle of Lake Town, destroying the bridge would've made no sense, as you pointed out. We'll have to assume he couldn't.

That assumption is convenient and contrary to how I read the story. Laketown brings in lots of goods by boat. They have dock areas which would be suitable for any such landing. You discount the idea of landing on roofs - something which I do not, even if it is just to help him slow down and hop off.

If Laketown is that crowded with small structures that there is no place to land, how would Smaug get around the town while on the ground anyways?

What purpose would there be for him to actually walk across that bridge?

Again, why destroy the bridge? To stop Smaug? How does that stop him? What it does do is cut off the quickest route of escape of the town residents and that does not seem very bright.

Why does a creature who can fly and attack from the air need with a land bridge? It simply makes no sense that I can see.

I agree that if a land based army was marching on your town, then you may want to cut yourself off from them in that fashion. But the attack was clearly by air and the people of Laketown knew that he was coming by air.

[skip spence]

^My point is simple really:

The inhabitants wouldn't have wasted their time destroying the bridge if they thought Smaug could land on Lake Town. And they were right: he could not, or at least did not.

[Sauron the White]

There is a far more obvious point.
Why would Smaug need to land at all?
He has no use for that bridge.
What is the point of destroying a bridge to the land if the dragon Smaug does not need to use that bridge?

And you saw they would not have wasted their time. Fact is they had precious little time according to the author. How fast can they destroy a bridge? Are we to believe that a pre industrial people can destroy a large bridge in the time it takes a dragon, already in sight, to fly to them?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

That assumption is convenient and contrary to how I read the story. Laketown brings in lots of goods by boat. They have dock areas which would be suitable for any such landing.

These docks received floating barrels and surely some boats, but ships? It's a lake, not a sea port. Regardless, I'm not sure how comfortable Smaug would be landing on something of unproven girth so near the water.

You discount the idea of landing on roofs - something which I do not, even if it is just to help him slow down and hop off.

Could he land on a stick roof thatched with straw? I'm not sure of the structures of Laketown, nor know the weight of Smaug to perform an adequate experiment.

We do know that Smaug rarely ran great distances, and so don't have to discuss worm glycogen levels...

If Laketown is that crowded with small structures that there is no place to land, how would Smaug get around the town while on the ground anyways?

People were responding in fear, plus if he could get into the city on the ground, he may have had more opportunity to eat them than just cook them.

What purpose would there be for him to actually walk across that bridge?

Again, why destroy the bridge? To stop Smaug? How does that stop him? What it does do is cut off the quickest route of escape of the town residents and that does not seem very bright.

There may have been some gold that he might not have minded adding to his horde. Plus at what distance can dragon eyes bemuse people? What if he walked to the town end of the bridge, hypnotized some survivors and made them marry their siblings?

If you knew that that was a possibility, surely you'd throw down your bridge, just to be safe ("Better cooked that hooked!).

Why does a creature who can fly and attack from the air need with a land bridge? It simply makes no sense that I can see.

You're just not trying hard enough.

I agree that if a land based army was marching on your town, then you may want to cut yourself off from them in that fashion. But the attack was clearly by air and the people of Laketown knew that he was coming by air.

Again, they may have been just responding in haste to an attack of which they knew little, little of what form it would eventually take.

[Sauron the White]

I agree that they responded in haste. I also think this is one of the glaring errors in the writing of this part of the tale.

Lets approach this using a bit of common sense.

"Oh look a fire breathing dragon is attacking us from the air".

""Quick, destroy the only bridge that affords us a quick escape to the land"
Yup, now I see.

[davem]

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.

There was once more a tremendous excitement and enthusiasm. But the grim-voiced fellow ran hotfoot to the Master. "The dragon is coming or I am a fool!"he cried. "Cut the bridges! To arms! To arms!"
Then warning trumpets were suddenly sounded, and echoed along the rocky shores. The cheering stopped and the joy was turned to dread. So it was that the dragon did not find them quite unprepared.
Before long, so great was his speed, they could see him as a spark of fire rushing towards them and growing ever huger and more bright, and not the most foolish doubted that the prophecies had gone rather wrong. Still they had a little time. Every vessel in the town was filled with water, every warrior was armed, every arrow and dart was ready, and the bridge to the land was thrown down and destroyed, before the roar of Smaug's terrible approach grew loud, and the lake rippled red as fire beneath the awful beating of his wings.
Amid shrieks and wailing and the shouts of men he came over them, swept towards the bridges and was foiled! 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.

Clearly Smaug was afraid of the lake & wished to avoid it as far as possible. The bridge would have given him access to the town certainly, but its entirely possible that he intended to burn the bridge & thereby burn the town, or even just besiege the place & starve the people.

That said, its not clear he actually wanted to destroy Esgaroth at all, merely teach the people a lesson:

"Barrel-rider!"he snorted. "Your feet came from the waterside and up die water you came without a doubt. I don't know your smell, but
if you are not one of those men of the Lake, you had their help. They shall see me and remember who is the real King under the Mountain!"
He rose in fire and went away south towards the Running River.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by alatar

Plus at what distance can dragon eyes bemuse people? What if he walked to the town end of the bridge, hypnotized some survivors and made them marry their siblings?

If you knew that that was a possibility, surely you'd throw down your bridge, just to be safe ("Better cooked that hooked!).

That made me laugh out loud. Good stuff alatar!

And StW, didn't they evacuate women children and such before destroying the bridge? This I how I remember it anyway.

I'm getting a bit fed up with this discussion (a smilie not available on this forum comes to mind: you know the 'beating one's head against a brick wall'-one) but let me reiterate and expand on one point I previously made: Lake Town was constructed as it was in order to offer the best possible protection against Smaug. When the defenders destroyed the bridge I must assume they did so because this was part of a pre-devised emergency plan. As they knew the bridge would have to be destroyed quickly I must also assume it was constructed in a manner that makes this possible.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I agree that they responded in haste. I also think this is one of the glaring errors in the writing of this part of the tale.

Of course, being a knighted defender of the faithful, I see no error here (or anywhere). And the trouble those dwarves have caused on this forum.

Lets approach this using a bit of common sense.

"Oh look a fire breathing dragon is attacking us from the air".

""Quick, destroy the only bridge that affords us a quick escape to the land"
Yup, now I see.

"Worms fly and walk. We cannot throw down the air, but can remove at least one avenue of attack."

"But what of escape?"

"Use your common sense, man! What good would it do for any number of us to run across the bridge to the land? Wouldn't that just be the biggest target for Smaug? Those that don't get cooked in the running surely will find their way into the belly of the worm when they make it to shore. Now make haste and scatter to the waters...it's the best chance you've got. Swim, or float as you may on some small support, but stay away from the larger boats as surely Smaug will smite them to ruin."

If that doesn't convince you, then I'll leave with the fact that the Master was not the best leader of men in times of trouble.

And regarding sense, the defenders use arrows against a foe that is immune to said attack (with one small exception), and yet they shot on, trying to do something. And as I see the bridge, not all of it is stationary - it floats a bit up and down with the ebb and flow of the water. For this middle section may be connected by strong rope, and to cut these with an axe would throw down the bridge quickly like so many gordian knots.

[Sauron the White]

How does destroying the bridge to the land help the people of Laketown agains a flying fire breathing dragon who does not need that bridge in the least?

Nobody has answered that key question.

from Alatar

Of course, being a knighted defender of the faithful, I see no error here (or anywhere).

AHHHH!!!!! So this is a question of blind faith in ones deity. That makes the above responses much clearer.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

How does destroying the bridge to the land help the people of Laketown agains a flying fire breathing dragon who does not need that bridge in the least?

Nobody has answered that key question.

Sorry, thought that I did.

Can I ask why you assume that Smaug could not make any use of the bridge?

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

How does destroying the bridge to the land help the people of Laketown agains a flying fire breathing dragon who does not need that bridge in the least?

Nobody has answered that key question.

Perhaps no one has answered that question because it is entirely irrelevant, since Smaug clearly *does* "need the bridge in the least", while the hypothetical dragon who doesn't fails to enter the story?

Now, if you meant to ask how destroying the bridge helps the people of Laketown against Smaug, that question has been answered several times. To sum up these answers (as I see them - forgive me if I misinterpreted someone's point):

1. Smaug could not land in Laketown without the bridge.
2. Because Smaug could not land, his vulnerable underbelly was exposed. He was, in fact, killed because of this.
3. Smaug feared the water, and the text itself says, in as many words, that he "was foiled", and describes him as originally making for the bridges in his attack.
4. The bridge did not offer a viable escape-route anyway, because the water itself offered more protection from a fire-breathing dragon than did the land.

[Sauron the White]

1. Smaug could not land in Laketown without the bridge.

There is not one iota of proof offered to support that claim. Not one. Just the opposite. We know that boats were loaded and unloaded so there had to have been dock space for that purpose. Smaug - if he wanted to land - could have landed there at the least.

2. Because Smaug could not land, his vulnerable underbelly was exposed. He was, in fact, killed because of this.

The deliberate destruction of the bridge to achieve this goal would only make sense if they first knew about the structural flaw on Smaugs belly. But they clearly did not know of it. Thus, the destruction of the bridge to aid in the downing of the dragon because of his exposed belly was not on or in anyones mind. So if this is your reason for the townspeople destroying the bridge, it clearly could not have been something they were aware of.

3. Smaug feared the water, and the text itself says, in as many words, that he "was foiled", and describes him as originally making for the bridges in his attack.

As long as Smuag had the ability to fly and retreat when tired it is irrelevent as to what he feared. I fear heights but as long as that airplane stays up its no big deal. Smaug never intended to go into the water or on the land for that matter. His attack was strictly aerial from start to finish.

What was he "foiled" in? In destroying the bridge himself? Some of his fun was spoiled? Or maybe Smaug intended to wipe out scores of fleeing townspeople easily as they bunched up closely running across that bridge to possible freedom from his destruction? Again, his fun and intentions were foiled and spoiled. Or in landing upon it and walking over... for what conceivable purpose?

Please quote the section of the text which states that Smaug feared the water. He did not go into it because of the vapor that would rise thus blinding him to the escaping people and it would quench him putting out his fires. But it would hardly harm him.

4. The bridge did not offer a viable escape-route anyway, because the water itself offered more protection from a fire-breathing dragon than did the land.

ANd what supports that belief? A boat on the water was subject to the same aerial attack that those on the ground, or on the bridge, or those who would have reached mainland would have been subject to. There is no difference.
In fact JRRT tells us that Smaug cared not if they went into the boats because the dragon greatly enjoyed the sport of hunting them.

"They could all get into the boats for all he cared. There he could have fine sport hunting them, or they could stop till they starved. "

So JRRT himself says that Smaug intended to hunt them while they were in the boats on the water.

And JRRT himself said from the time the dragon was spotted to the time he arrived was brief.

"Still they had little time".

Given the "little time" they had for Smaug to close that distance, just how did they manage to quickly get organized, grab the proper tools and supplies, divide into divisions of labor, and take down and destroy that bridge? Was this like the River Kwai where the bridge was wired with explosives? I think not. Just how did they destroy that bridge so quickly in the few moments it took Smaug to arrive and attack the town?

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by STW

The deliberate destruction of the bridge to achieve this goal would only make sense if they first knew about the structural flaw on Smaugs belly.

They would not need to know this for a fact - conventional wisdom to which even Bilbo had access would give them reason to suspect it:

"I have always understood," said Bilbo in a frightened squeak, "that dragons were softer underneath, especially in the region of the -- er -- chest; but doubtless one so fortified has thought of that"

Originally Posted by STW

As long as Smuag had the ability to fly and retreat when tired it is irrelevent as to what he feared.

Since repetition seems to be popular around here anyway, here goes:

Amid shrieks and wailing and the shouts of men he came over them, swept towards the bridges and was foiled!The bridge was gone, and his enemies were on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking.

It seems perfectly clear from this quote that Smaug "was foiled" because the bridge was gone. Now, why this is the case may be up for debate, but the fact that it is so is given in the text. Smaug sweeps "towards the bridges" and is foiled, and the next sentence would seem logically to explain how this was so - and it says "the bridge was gone, and his enemies were... (etc.)" What is your explanation for how Smaug was foiled, if it wasn't by the destruction of the bridges?

Originally Posted by STW

Please quote the section of the text which states that Smaug feared the water. He did not go into it because of the vapor that would rise thus blinding him to the escaping people and it would quench him putting out his fires. But it would hardly harm him.

It seems, to me, excessive to quote what Davem already quoted a few posts back. Furthermore, if the water quenched his fire it would seriously impair his attack, which is a perfectly reasonable and obvious explanation for his fear and avoidance of it. This is beside the point at any rate - the point is that the text appears to link the destruction of the bridge with the risk, for Smaug, of ending up in the water or wet, something he wishes to avoid.
Furthermore, the text implies he had some plan involving the bridge, in which he was foiled by its destruction. This alone, even unexplained, shows the destruction of the bridge was of some use against Smaug. The question of the effect of water, because of its placement in the text, strongly suggests Smaug planned to use the bridge in his preferred attack, one which would not be as likely to bring him into contact with the water when the bridge was present. Since an attack by air doesn't carry such a risk in any event, it would appear he would have preferred not to be forced to attack from the air.

Originally Posted by STW

And what supports that belief? A boat on the water was subject to the same aerial attack that those on the ground, or on the bridge, or those who would have reached mainland would have been subject to. There is no difference.

I was referring to alatar's imagined scenario in his post #12, which, as you can see, doesn't involve boats. This is not particularly important, however, if it is understood that Smaug would have preferred to attack by land and would have been more dangerous in such an attack. It's true that the reasons behind this remain open to speculation, but Smaug's preferred attack is clear.

Originally Posted by SRW

Given the "little time" they had for Smaug to close that distance, just how did they manage to quickly get organized, grab the proper tools and supplies, divide into divisions of labor, and take down and destroy that bridge? Was this like the River Kwai where the bridge was wired with explosives? I think not. Just how did they destroy that bridge so quickly in the few moments it took Smaug to arrive and attack the town?

This has already been addressed several times - the bridge was designed to be quickly destroyed. If they had designed it accordingly, a few cuts should have done the trick, and if it was their emergency plan, they likely had the necessary tools readily availiable and people assigned to the task.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by STW

There is not one iota of proof offered to support that claim. Not one.

We have a dragon who was apparently foiled in his preferred attack because of the lack of a bridge - implying his preference was to attack from land, and he could not do so without the bridge - ergo, he couldn't land in Laketown. I would say an appeal to the text of this sort comes closer to "proof" (while it is not proof, and I doubt either side will arrive at any such thing) than speculation about dock space as a dragon-landing-strip does.

[Sauron the White]

They would not need to know this for a fact - conventional wisdom to which even Bilbo had access would give them reason to suspect it:

With all due respect, are you serious? "Convention wisdom" told the town that Smaug had a bare patch in his jewel encrusted armor? And you know this how? Nobody in that town knew anything until the thrush told Bard. Or maybe you know something that JRRT did not tell us in the text. Or you are basing this on the "convention wisdom" that any old dragon can be shot down if you hit it in the belly with an arrow. And the people of the town would know that how? Literature? Experience? Years of hunting dragons?

What is your explanation for how Smaug was foiled, if it wasn't by the destruction of the bridges?

I gave that to you in the post above. Again...

What was he "foiled" in? In destroying the bridge himself? Some of his fun was spoiled? Or maybe Smaug intended to wipe out scores of fleeing townspeople easily as they bunched up closely running across that bridge to possible freedom from his destruction? Again, his fun and intentions were foiled and spoiled. Or in landing upon it and walking over... for what conceivable purpose?

Nobody - your or davem - quoted anything to show that Smaug had a fear - to use the word several have used - of water. JRRT explains how it would hinder Smaugs fun - but that is clearly not the same as some phobia which would ground him. JRRT clearly says he intended to hunt down the townies in their boats upon the very water that he was supposed to fear according to some here.

And by the way, are we suppose to believe that while there were no places large enough for Smaug to land in Laketown, there was plenty of open space for him to maneuver among the various streets and lanes of the town with some elbow room to spare? Either its one way or the other here on the layout of Laketown.

It's true that the reasons behind this remain open to speculation, but Smaug's preferred attack is clear.

Clear as mud. There is nothing to indicate that Smaug intended to land anywhere in Laketown, let alone on the bridge or the same bridge was the one and only place he could have landed. No support for that at all. There is nothing CLEAR about that.

We have a dragon who was apparently foiled in his preferred attack because of the lack of a bridge - implying his preference was to attack from land, and he could not do so without the bridge - ergo, he couldn't land in Laketown. I would say an appeal to the text of this sort comes closer to "proof" (while it is not proof, and I doubt either side will arrive at any such thing) than speculation about dock space as a dragon-landing-strip does."

You are reading things into the text that are not there. Smaug flew towards the bridge and the author never mentions he wanted to land there for any reason let alone the one you place on him. Once again, we are supposed to believe the fallacy that the only place that would accomodate his landing was the bridge but then accept the idea that the streets were wide enough and there were enough open spaces for Smaug to freely go through the city and do his business. Which design of Laketown are you subscribing to because a belief in both those contradict themselves? And how much space is needed for a dragon landing strip? Is there something in the text that tells us that a dragon comes in like a 747 and needs thousands of feet of open space?

And I am still waiting to find out how the townspeople destroyed that bridge in such "little time" as was available to them.

tis is your explaination

This has already been addressed several times - the bridge was designed to be quickly destroyed. If they had designed it accordingly, a few cuts should have done the trick, and if it was their emergency plan, they likely had the necessary tools readily availiable and people assigned to the task.

You certainly have a great deal of faith when things are not there to support them. People without power tools, people without explosives, people who do not have any special skill in these areas are suppose to quickly rush out and destroy a bridge with ... how did you put it? ..... "a few cuts".
You have a great deal more faith than I do before this altar.

[Rikae]

Since answering any of your questions would only involve repeating what I and others already said, I'll simply point you back to the previous posts and suggest you read them. You are misrepresenting the points that have been made, willfully or otherwise, and until you make some honest effort to understand what's already been said further discussion is pointless.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Sauron

"Convention wisdom" told the town that Smaug had a bare patch in his jewel encrusted armor?

Conventional wisdom said that dragons have a vulnerable belly, just as the quote Rikae provided states. As far as I remember, nobody knew about the armour on Smaug's belly. By destroying the bridge, the Lakemen keep Smaug from attacking from land, which gives them the supposed chance to shoot him off the sky with arrows - just as they attempted it.

Originally Posted by Sauron

What was he "foiled" in?

He was foiled in attacking the town properly. His attack is instead reduced to breathing fire and hunting boats. He apparently is unable to land in the town, and he can no longer walk into it.

Originally Posted by Sauron

Or in landing upon it and walking over... for what conceivable purpose?

Because his attack would be much more devastating if he landed and was able to walk through the city. His strength and his claws are useless in an air assault.

Originally Posted by Sauron

Nobody - your [Rikae] or davem - quoted anything to show that Smaug had a fear - to use the word several have used - of water.

As given quotes tell, if Smaug fell into the water it would quench his fire and everything would be covered in mist for days. He would have had to fly home and try again a few days later. By that time, Laketown would likely be deserted. He had no phobia of water or feared for his life - nobody claimed that. He feared that the water would ruin his assault.

Originally Posted by Sauron

And by the way, are we suppose to believe that while there were no places large enough for Smaug to land in Laketown, there was plenty of open space for him to maneuver among the various streets and lanes of the town with some elbow room to spare? Either its one way or the other here on the layout of Laketown.

I would assume that Laketown was more or less build like a medieval village, which means rather narrow streets. But if we look at Tolkien's pictures, we see a dragon who has a long, but rather narrow build. He also could have climbed over the houses, I think.

Originally Posted by Sauron

Clear as mud. There is nothing to indicate that Smaug intended to land anywhere in Laketown, let alone on the bridge or the same bridge was the one and only place he could have landed. No support for that at all. There is nothing CLEAR about that.

There is nothing to indicate that Smaug intended to land anywhere in Laketown, let alone on the bridges. You are right in that, and those who claim it are rather wrong. However, it is rather clear to me that he intended to land on solid ground and then use the bridge to walk into the town to destroy it:

Originally Posted by The Hobbit, Fire and Water

They could all get into boats for all he cared. There he could have fine sport hunting them, or they could stop till they starved. Let them try to get to land and he would be ready.

As you see, he could do nothing but hunt or starve them while they're on the water. He needed them to reach the shores in order to defeat them. The quote already provided says that Smaug's first destination were the bridges, but, as you point out, it doesn't say he wanted to land on them. My guess is that they wouldn't be strong enough to support a landing - the impact might've send him right through it and into the undesired water. The same holds for landing on the docks.

edit:

Originally Posted by Sauron

And I am still waiting to find out how the townspeople destroyed that bridge in such "little time" as was available to them.

Originally Posted by The Hobbit, Fire and Water

Cut the bridges!

To me, this sounds like the bridges were built in a way that requires nothing more than a few axes to destroy them.

[Sauron the White]

When I post these questions it is because others have more knowledge than I do about many of these things. Often, it is quickly resolved and I see what I missed in a mere simple reading. But in this case, it seems that many people who see it differently - and that is certainly their right - are basing much of this on a series of assumptions - any one of which can be challenged and doubt cast upon it.

In this case, we have the assumptions that

*** Smaug was intending to land on the bridge and walk into Laketown

*** he needed a airport sized runway in which to land and only the bridge afforded him that

*** while the bridge was big enough, no other structure in Laketown was including the docks area

*** while the city was crowded and cramped not allowing him to land, it was big enough for him to manuever around - or perhaps small enough enabling him to walk over the structures

*** the bridge was built in a special way so that common folk without power tools or explosives could not only down it, but actually destroy it in the brief time it took from the sighting of Smaug to the arrival of Smaug over Laketown

*** A flying, fire breathing dragon would decide that he was more devestating upon the ground, moving slowly and deliberatly in a crowded town than swooping fast and lithe from above

Okay. These assumptions may be accepted by many here and that is fine. I just cannot in good use of my faculties accept them.

Maybe I simply do not have the faith.

[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.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Okay. These assumptions may be accepted by many here and that is fine. I just cannot in good use of my faculties accept them.

Maybe I simply do not have the faith.

Leaving aside the inaccuracy of several of your characterizations of the assumptions of other posters here...
You yourself seem to be basing your opinions on an assumption I find strange indeed - that Tolkien mentioned the destruction of the bridges not once, but twice, without having any reason for doing so.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

But in this case, it seems that many people who see it differently - and that is certainly their right - are basing much of this on a series of assumptions - any one of which can be challenged and doubt cast upon it.

I think you're misinterpreting some of those assumptions:

*** Smaug was intending to land on the bridge and walk into Laketown

No indication of landing on the bridge. Some have claimed that, but I see no support for it.

*** he needed a airport sized runway in which to land and only the bridge afforded him that

*** while the bridge was big enough, no other structure in Laketown was including the docks area

These two are founded on the last one.

*** while the city was crowded and cramped not allowing him to land, it was big enough for him to manuever around - or perhaps small enough enabling him to walk over the structures

He might not be able to land in the town because he would crash right through the structures (when he was shot, that is in fact what he ended up doing). It is indeed not clear why he can't. Whether or not he can manoeuver around in the town depends not only on the way it is built, but also on the shape and size of the dragon.

*** the bridge was built in a special way so that common folk without power tools or explosives could not only down it, but actually destroy it in the brief time it took from the sighting of Smaug to the arrival of Smaug over Laketown

We have to believe that. The bridges were apparently built in a way that a section of them could be torn down by simply cutting a few ropes, which would certainly not take longer than it would take Smaug to arrive. I don't know enough about bridges to say anything about how simple it is to build such, but it doesn't sound unbelievable to me.

*** A flying, fire breathing dragon would decide that he was more devestating upon the ground, moving slowly and deliberatly in a crowded town than swooping fast and lithe from above

Smaug is pretty devastating 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.

[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"?

[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.

[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).

[alatar]

Just a quick thought before I'm engaged at getting the kids off to bed: Why do we assume that it's Smaug's intent to destroy Laketown? As I stated earlier, why wouldn't he want to play with the mice a little while, and why sink all of that treasure - regardless if it were large or small - into the lake where he could not go?

Keep in mind that dragons, methinks, are much like cats.

alatar runs off before Bethberry sees him.

[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.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Just a quick thought before I'm engaged at getting the kids off to bed: Why do we assume that it's Smaug's intent to destroy Laketown? As I stated earlier, why wouldn't he want to play with the mice a little while, and why sink all of that treasure - regardless if it were large or small - into the lake where he could not go?

Keep in mind that dragons, methinks, are much like cats.

alatar runs off before Bethberry sees him.

Now that's just plain erroneous, al. Everyone knows that cats do not need to resort to breathing fire in order to draw respect, awe, fielty, obseisance. All it takes is a flick of the tail.

I had always assumed that the command to cut the bridges (easily done if they are suspension bridges hung with rope) represented both the muddled nature of Laketown's defenses, due to poor leadership, coupled with a sort of seige mentality, a bit perhaps like that at Masada.

I'm sure that under such duress enterprising young lads would have worked out the Middle earth equivalent of SuperSoakers, which could well have proven effective, given his desire to avoid water, in holding off Smaug.

Such weapons likely would not ressemble the water pistols of today but more likely be something akin to a . . . water sabre or lance, perhaps even a sort of water Aeglos. Their whereabouts would of course remain unknown to this day.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Would the quickest escape route not be by boat? I am just guessing that they did not keep horses in Esgaroth. . .

Mac quite correctly points out that no body said that Smaug had to land on the bridge. The thing is that if he could slowly aproach the city via the bridge hos level of destruction would be much higher than attacking it from above. . . You grap a bow and arrow, stand up and shoot it at a dummy, then do the same while running around in circles, which one is easier?

The only way that Smaug would have had the same advantage attacking from the air, would have been if he had the flight ability as a helicopter and if he was equally vournrable from every angle.

That being said I think the burning of the bridge was written because it was simple war stradegy and we all know that Tolkien had some experience with this.

I am sorry if I have brought nothing new to this discustion.

[The Sixth Wizard]

Hello all.

The reason the Lake Towners destroyed their own bridge was a mix of battlefield tactics and good sense. First off, however:

Just how did they destroy that bridge so quickly in the few moments it took Smaug to arrive and attack the town?

The Hobbit reads "the bridge was thrown down and destroyed." I personally would presume it was by burning. Although "thrown down" appears to indicate it was ripped apart, Tolkien uses the word "destroy". If it was ripped down, Tolkien would have used words like "broken" instead, which seems to me to indicate it was burned. It would certainly make sense.

And now on to their motives for destroying the bridge.

It is simply good sense. I was watching a television program last night about escape scenarios in sporting arenas. The sporting arenas are unimportant; the point is it struck me that in an emergency, the first thing someone thinks of is to run and get out as fast as they can, forgetting about other members of the community besides their relatives. The first few who ran the bridge might have made it, but this would inspire more people to do the same and cause a massacre when Smaug burned the bridge. The authorities must have decided to rip it down to encourage escape by boat, which would give the populace as a whole more chance of survival.

It is good tactics. If the dragon was to attack via land, the defenders would be forced to confront it bit-by-bit, in small groups. Can you possibly imagine having to fire arrows into the maw of the beast, knowing that you are about to be incinerated and that they will merely bounce off? And to heighten the fear, only a few men near you, who you hardly know, are obligated to do this as well, and they are most likely running for their lives? (This is why armies of antiquity used flaming arrows and bolts; it is utterly terrifying to think you might burn alive.) It would be a rout. Even if the men were all into suicide, they would make no impression upon Smaug's armour and would only get one shot each.

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". (Coincidentally, the Hobbit video game has him hovering; as if! ) Smaug would have to exert himself far more than usual thanks to the jewels he weighed himself down with, for far less overall damage, exposing his most vulnerable area to the masses of archers, most likely on rooftops, who could fire all at once.

Think about it, people. This was the absolute best chance the people of Lake Town had. Escape via the bridge is an utterly farsical notion.