Why destroy Laketown's bridge?

[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.

[The Sixth Wizard]

Here's a classic picture of Smaug.



You think THAT could land on Esgaroth rooftops? Pssshh...

[davem]

Tolkien's drawing of Laketown.



Not sure how easy it would be to throw down this bridge, though its possible that the pillars supporting it were held in place by the planks, so that if you removed them the pillars would fall sideways into the lake.

[Sauron the White]

A picture says a thousand words.
Thank you to davem for supplying that drawing of Laketown. It does two things to reinforce my point:
1- the bridge is no flimsy thing supported by ropes. It is on strong and thick pillars. And like davem says, it looks like it is not easily destroyed without yet another litany of assumptions about many thing not visibe in the picture or written about in the text.
2- the area of the docks between the water and the buildings is indeed much wider than the actual bridge itself. Given the thinness of Smaug (again based on the other JRRT painting) he could have just as easilly landed on any of that docking space as opposed to that bridge. Which is what I have been saying from the very beginning. Smaug did not need the bridge if his intention was to land and go house to house.

I do think that if this passage had been written for LOTR, it would have been longer, more fully developed and the detail much crisper and clearer. JRRT would have explained what Smaugs intentions were, and perhaps explained why it ws necessary to thrown down and destroy the bridge. JRRT was such a superb writer that I have no doubt it would have made perfect sense.

Having said that, THE HOBBIT was written on a far different level and that type of explaination and detail was simply not there. As a result, we get a rather confusing couple of lines that are open to various different meanings.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

1- the bridge is no flimsy thing supported by ropes. It is on strong and thick pillars. And like davem says, it looks like it is not easily destroyed.

It doesn't look easily thrown down, to be sure. For that matter, Smaug looks entirely too long and thin for a flying creature.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

2- the area of the docks between the water and the buildings is indeed much wider than the actual bridge itself. Given the thinness of Smaug (again based on the other JRRT painting) he could have just as easilly landed on any of that docking space as opposed to that bridge.

Several people have already said Smaug's plan was probably to cross the bridge, not to land on it.

[The Sixth Wizard]

I'd think that Smaug wouldn't want to land on the walkways around Laketown because of their possible flimsiness and the likelihood of him falling in or touching the water. At least he knew that the bridge could hold heavy objects that were carted across every day...

It may also be *gasp* not a very good picture...

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

I'd think that Smaug wouldn't want to land on the walkways around Laketown because of their possible flimsiness and the likelihood of him falling in or touching the water. At least he knew that the bridge could hold heavy objects that were carted across every day...

He probably could also maneuver much more carefully on foot than he could in landing - so, land on solid ground and walk across the bridge.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

It may also be *gasp* not a very good picture...

Apart from the problems already mentioned, note that in the text Tolkien talks of bridges, while this Laketown only possesses one. The prof probably didn't have pedantic accuracy in mind when he drew this.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I don't know much about throwing down bridges, which is weird as it is what we Danes do best. . . but I have read about several cases where massive bridges was thrown down relatively quickly. Now this is a wooden bridge, this definitly is an advantage if you want to throw it down, but we have a hughe problem. . . We cannot know how the bridge was cunstructed, the fact that there is a lot of pillars tells us nothing of how strong the bridge was.

Burning bridges on the other hand, at that I am an expert!

About Smaug landing on the docking area or whatever it is between the houses and the water: Indeed it looks like there is plenty of space at the part closest to us, but if you look where it is level with the bridge it is actually quite difficult to say how broad any of the things is.

To reach a final conclution on this matter we really need to know about Smaug and Lake Towns siezes and Smaugs flying abilities.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

Not sure how easy it would be to throw down this bridge, though its possible that the pillars supporting it were held in place by the planks, so that if you removed them the pillars would fall sideways into the lake.

Quite possible. At least the left part of the bridge looks funnily enough like suspension bridge. Another thing is, where that boat on the right thinks it is going? It has nowhere much to land there, and it is positively heading into the dead end part between the town and the bridge. Maybe it expects the bridge to lift in front of it?

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Quite possible. At least the left part of the bridge looks funnily enough like suspension bridge. Another thing is, where that boat on the right thinks it is going? It has nowhere much to land there, and it is positively heading into the dead end part between the town and the bridge. Maybe it expects the bridge to lift in front of it?

I also wonder why the bridge seems to end up at least ten feet above ground level on the side attached to land - not to mention that the house is placed so close to its end as to make traffic to and from the bridge difficult.

Hmm... there appear to be spikes affixed to the larger roofs. I wonder what the intended purpose of those could be?

[Alfirin]

I don't think Smaug would want to completely destroy Esgaroth, just do enough damge to put the town in fear of him again. The town would be a useful source of tribute to him if not in gold than in food. A dragon as big as Smaugh would need a lot of food and Esgaroth's livestock (not to mention its citizens) would be like a cornucopia of low effort munchies (swoop down grab something and dinner is served; no hunting required)

As to the question of smaug's landing in Esagroth proper, I think it really depends on exactly what shape you think smaug is. If you think he is a stocky lizard shape then your right he can't if you think he is more sinous and flexible in from then he migh be able to coit around a rooftop. and if you belive (as I do) that flying dragons were closer to wyvrens in shape (i.e. that the wings were attached to the front legs not coming independenly out of the back) than smaug migh have landed in a more bipedal sitting, stance, in which case the space needed would be much less (say the size of the town square)

As to the comments on my earlier post I agree I had frogotten about boats however I'm not sure that there would have been sufficient boatage to get everyone off the island. most of the boats would proably have been small fishing vessels capable of holding five or six people tops. The vast majority would still have been stuck without the bridge. Moreover boats would not be as safe and exit as they sound at first. It takes time to set sails and rowing is slow. The hot air, both from Smaug and the burning city would probably have mucked up the wind assuming there was any that night. All the boat leaving at once would have ment serious problems with wakes bulding on each other into waves. Not to mention that anyone in a boat would be more or less a stiing duck should Smaug decide to fly over and spary them with flame. (or if he was really clever slap the water with his tail and make some serios waves. On that subject I'm not sure where everone is getting the idea that spraying water at Smaug would have been an effective weapon. Dragon fire (unlike say a campfire) is most likey self renew and probably cant be squetched by spraying liquid in the mouth (if it could than a dragons flame would go out every time it ate or drank. Water might have been good for putting out the fires Smaug made but any water sprayed at him while he was breathing flame would have probably just evaporated.

[The Sixth Wizard]

I've just found an interesting new line. Bard says, "Cut the bridges!" indicating to me at least that they were in fact dropped, not burnt. My bad...

There's a few problems in your post Alfrin:

I don't think Smaug would want to completely destroy Esgaroth, just do enough damge to put the town in fear of him again. The town would be a useful source of tribute to him if not in gold than in food. A dragon as big as Smaugh would need a lot of food and Esgaroth's livestock (not to mention its citizens) would be like a cornucopia of low effort munchies (swoop down grab something and dinner is served; no hunting required)

As to the question of smaug's landing in Esagroth proper, I think it really depends on exactly what shape you think smaug is. If you think he is a stocky lizard shape then your right he can't if you think he is more sinous and flexible in from then he migh be able to coit around a rooftop. and if you belive (as I do) that flying dragons were closer to wyvrens in shape (i.e. that the wings were attached to the front legs not coming independenly out of the back) than smaug migh have landed in a more bipedal sitting, stance, in which case the space needed would be much less (say the size of the town square)

As to the comments on my earlier post I agree I had frogotten about boats however I'm not sure that there would have been sufficient boatage to get everyone off the island. most of the boats would proably have been small fishing vessels capable of holding five or six people tops. The vast majority would still have been stuck without the bridge. Moreover boats would not be as safe and exit as they sound at first. It takes time to set sails and rowing is slow. The hot air, both from Smaug and the burning city would probably have mucked up the wind assuming there was any that night. All the boat leaving at once would have ment serious problems with wakes bulding on each other into waves. Not to mention that anyone in a boat would be more or less a stiing duck should Smaug decide to fly over and spary them with flame. (or if he was really clever slap the water with his tail and make some serios waves. On that subject I'm not sure where everone is getting the idea that spraying water at Smaug would have been an effective weapon. Dragon fire (unlike say a campfire) is most likey self renew and probably cant be squetched by spraying liquid in the mouth (if it could than a dragons flame would go out every time it ate or drank. Water might have been good for putting out the fires Smaug made but any water sprayed at him while he was breathing flame would have probably just evaporated.

Lets think about it; Smaug was pretty majorly peeved, I can't find a passage but he sure wanted to burn that place down. He didn't spare Dale, which was much closer, for tribute reasons, why would he spare Esgaroth? Dragons such as Smaug tended to sleep all day and were mystical creatures, they may not have needed so much food as they did gold, to sate their hunger.

An overly twisted dragon cannot fly all that well (at least not in take-off). I think Smaug was a mix of the two styles, wyvern and lizard.

Water I believe was used more as a fear element and to douse fires on the houses, not against Smaug. Dragon fire must not have been self-renew, because otherwise Beleriand would still be burning! At least the villagers thought water was a good tool, so it must have helped somewhat.

As for the boats, it is expressly stated that everyone had evacuated via boat, and this is Lake Town we're talking about, boats were how they got around and did business, every family must have had at least one.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

There's a few problems in your post Alfrin:

An overly twisted dragon cannot fly all that well (at least not in take-off). I think Smaug was a mix of the two styles, wyvern and lizard.

Water I believe was used more as a fear element and to douse fires on the houses, not against Smaug. Dragon fire must not have been self-renew, because otherwise Beleriand would still be burning! At least the villagers thought water was a good tool, so it must have helped somewhat.

As for the boats, it is expressly stated that everyone had evacuated via boat, and this is Lake Town we're talking about, boats were how they got around and did business, every family must have had at least one.

When I said twisted I meant like a snake can coil around on itself in a ring or wrap itslef around a branch; as the body took fligh it would uncoil (much as how a snake when it starts moving uncoils itlsef

By the fire being "self renewing" I meant self renewing inside the (living) dragon. If something was set on fire by a dragon it could of course be put out; all I meant was that I don't think that if you squirt wather down a dragons throat it keeps him from breathing fire (i.e. you can't put out a dragon's pilot light except by killing the dragon or destroying the organ (whatever it is). Given that I'm not sure why Smaug would be afraid of water (or did you mean something by fear element I'm not getting) Falling into the lake, sure, assuming that Smaug can't swim (he was already mortally wounded when he hit the lake so the question of wether he would have had a problme if he had hit it while still heathy is in my opinon still open. Some snakes can swim so maybe snaky dragons can, too) The only reason I can think of that water might worry Smaug would be that if enough water was sprayed on his belly the gunk/slime that holds the jewels in place might dissolve and his whole belly would again be vulnerable. However the men of Laketown would not know this and so could not have prepared water for this. In fact if the last time anyone saw smaugh was when he sacked Dale (before killing off the dwarves) he may not have had the jewel armor yet (no hoard to make it from)

I concede that smaug might not need tribute food and might destroy esgaroth to the ground and take its gold (though if he was smart he would realize that as long as there are still people there more gold will come in. Destroy everthing and you can sack only once, destroy a little and you can sack again and again) but still he may have to much malice in him to think that far ahead. Likewise I was not aware they said that there boats enough for all so I retract that part.

[The Sixth Wizard]

By the fire being "self renewing" I meant self renewing inside the (living) dragon.

Ah my mistake.

Actually I was always at a loss as to how Smaug kept those jewels on him... obviously they are his most prized ones or the most hard, so he wouldn't want them to fall off. I always thought they kind of "stuck on", as though he had lain on them for so long they just stick, like say, when you breathe on a spoon and stick it to your nose..

Dragon anatomy ... now THAT would be a cool topic.

[Rikae]

I think, Alfirin, that you're right in saying that spraying water on Smaug wouldn't put out his fire, but it certainly seems like total immersion in cold water would, at least temporarily, do so.

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.

(Assuming "quench him" means it would impair his fire-producing ability.)

[Sauron the White]

Bard saying "cut the bridges" is confusing becuase - according to the drawing of Laketown - I see nothing to cut. This is not some suspension bridge. Perhaps "cut the bridges" was a shorthand way of saying something else.

However, I do think the drawing - done by the same man who wrote the text so he certainly knew what he felt Laketown looked like - gives support to my initial position that Smaug did not need the bridge for any reason. He had plenty of space on the dock s around the buildings and they run the length and width of the town providing ample space to both take off and land. And they do look rather wide.

If anyone is going to postulate that they will not support Smaugs weight, that would then apply also to the entire town since its all on the same foundation. Those support pillars go right up to the edge of the docks.

But it is my contention that Smaug - being a creature who is much faster in the air - would stick to a fast and quick aerial attack because that is where his advantage lied. You can speculate about food and additional treasure all you want, but the idea of a massive dragon walking foot by foot through this rather crowded looking town while many armed people attacked him at close range, defies logic for him to take that approach. There is simply no advantage to him doing that as opposed to his great advantage in the air.

There is no reason to destroy that bridge against a creature who is attacking you from the air. When the Germans did their lengthy bombing of England in WWII, was anyone heard to say "quick, the Lutwaffe is coming, destroy London Bridge". Seems rather silly does it not.

[alatar]

Not sure of the exact mechanism, but under extreme magnification I noted that the bridge was designed to repel Smaug.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Bard saying "cut the bridges" is confusing becuase - according to the drawing of Laketown - I see nothing to cut. This is not some suspension bridge. Perhaps "cut the bridges" was a shorthand way of saying something else.

However, I do think the drawing - done by the same man who wrote the text so he certainly knew what he felt Laketown looked like - gives support to my initial position that Smaug did not need the bridge for any reason. He had plenty of space on the dock s around the buildings and they run the length and width of the town providing ample space to both take off and land. And they do look rather wide.

Text and picture obviously do not match (just take the number of bridges). Therefore, one must be faulty. Since I think Tolkien was much more careful about what he wrote than he was about what he drew, in the case of contradiction I would take the description and discard the depiction.

And even if we take the picture, landing on those docks looks dangerous, considering Smaug's speed and the fact that one misstep would make him end up in the lake.

Originally Posted by Sauron

If anyone is going to postulate that they will not support Smaugs weight, that would then apply also to the entire town since its all on the same foundation. Those support pillars go right up to the edge of the docks.

It would support the weight, but perhaps not the impact. He did crash through it when he died, and do we know whether he was able to sufficiently slow down before landing? I still think it is believable that Smaug was not able to land inside the town, but apart from the fact that it is said that he was unable to, there appears to be no evidence to either side.

Originally Posted by Sauron

But it is my contention that Smaug - being a creature who is much faster in the air - would stick to a fast and quick aerial attack because that is where his advantage lied. You can speculate about food and additional treasure all you want, but the idea of a massive dragon walking foot by foot through this rather crowded looking town while many armed people attacked him at close range, defies logic for him to take that approach. There is simply no advantage to him doing that as opposed to his great advantage in the air.

My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death!

Consider this and tell me why Smaug should be afraid of many armed people attacking him at close range? Smaug's only advantage in the air is speed and mobility. If you consider yourself invincible, this is only little advantage. To the contrary, he is much more deadly when he can engage in closer "combat", which he is unable to do while flying.

Originally Posted by Sauron

There is no reason to destroy that bridge against a creature who is attacking you from the air. When the Germans did their lengthy bombing of England in WWII, was anyone heard to say "quick, the Lutwaffe is coming, destroy London Bridge". Seems rather silly does it not.

Seems a silly analogy indeed. It would be analogous if there had been a bridge over the channel, and if there had been one, you can bet it would have been torn down in a minute.

[Rikae]

Good points, Sixth, just one thing I'd like to mention:

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

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.

I think this description fits quite well with the suspension-bridge scenario - the bridge could be both "cut" and literally "thrown down". When the bridge is also "destroyed", it could very well be that it was first cut loose, then set on fire (setting it on fire without cutting it loose first risks setting the city on fire as well).

I would imagine the bridges probably had guards posted and these guards, during their initial training, were taught the emergency bridge-destruction plan, shown where the tools were kept and which ropes to cut if the signal was given, something of this nature. Even in the absence of guards, those who lived and worked near the bridges would have been similarly prepared. If the villiage is small enough, everyone might have known said emergency plan and been prepared to execute it.

[Galendor]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

I don't think dragons can hover; any soaring lizards of today can not fly efficiently and, more to the point, flying lizards of the dinosaurs' time such as Quetzalcoatlus could not hover or even take off without updrafts, and those creatures were built purely for flight. Smaug is built like a lizard in Tolkien's pictures, not a cat. Lizards such as Australian goannas can not curl up like a dragon would need to do in order to land on buildings. Therefore the dragon would be forced to do a series of fly-bys, with fire breath in short bursts, before wheeling around and attacking again. Indeed, in the book, Smaug is described as "swooping".

Everyone knows that most if not all dragons have relatively small wings considering their body size, and therefore use a rotary, high-speed and constant wingstroke like a hummingbird or bumblebee to fly. This creates a flying/fighting style that is both humorous and terrifying to behold.

But, as TSW points out, perhaps Smaug had relatively large wings and flew more like a buzzard or condor (primarily soaring and using an occasional vertical wing stroke to recover altitude and velocity). If so, he might need to use a high altitude (i.e. Lonely Mountain) launching site and thermal updrafts to take flight.

So perhaps Smaug did not land in Lake Town because he knew he would not be able to take off again from that low altitude situation, and without a bridge would be trapped unless he could swim (which is unknown).

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Galendor

Everyone knows that most if not all dragons have relatively small wings considering their body size, and therefore use a rotary, high-speed and constant wingstroke like a hummingbird or bumblebee to fly. This creates a flying/fighting style that is both humorous and terrifying to behold.

But, as TSW points out, perhaps Smaug had relatively large wings and flew more like a buzzard or condor (primarily soaring and using an occasional vertical wing stroke to recover altitude and velocity). If so, he might need to use a high altitude (i.e. Lonely Mountain) launching site and thermal updrafts to take flight.

So perhaps Smaug did not land in Lake Town because he knew he would not be able to take off again from that low altitude situation, and without a bridge would be trapped unless he could swim (which is unknown).

Is the first part about the wings a joke? It is just that I cannot see how there can be common knowledge about a fable-animal, the descirption of dragons are very different depending on what part of the world you are in and in some places there are no "given" form that the dragon has.

About Smaug needing thermal updrafts: It is a possibility, but would that not limit is mobility? It would be extremely difficult for him to fly away from whatever mountain range he was living by, just like you never see the big vultures of South America very far from the mountains.

[Galendor]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

Is the first part about the wings a joke? It is just that I cannot see how there can be common knowledge about a fable-animal, the descirption of dragons are very different depending on what part of the world you are in and in some places there are no "given" form that the dragon has.

About Smaug needing thermal updrafts: It is a possibility, but would that not limit is mobility? It would be extremely difficult for him to fly away from whatever mountain range he was living by, just like you never see the big vultures of South America very far from the mountains.

Not a joke, given their relatively small wings, dragons must fly like a hummingbird or bumblebee does, with a high-speed rotary wingstroke. Also they have hollow bones for lightness, and very long, sticky tongues for fishing dwarves out of deep holes in the ground. Dragons like Smaug also exude a thick, sticky mucilage from their undersides that allows jewels and other treasure to stick permanently to them. The spot over their heart is mucilage-free, for reasons unknown.

But alas, some dragons are born too fat or become so with age, and must exist as winged but flightless animals, like penguins. Smaug could still fly, but probably not for very long (glycogen depletion would get him in the end, just like it should have poor Gimli). So he wanted the bridge intact so he could waddle into Laketown on his legs and really have his way with the place in a nice slow fashion.

[The Sixth Wizard]

Originally Posted by StW

If Smaug wanted to go to the ground in Laketown, he had more room on the docksides than he did on the bridge.

Smaug would not land on the bridge. He would land a sizeable distance (hundreds of metres) out from it, then approach it on land. Smaug would obviously not want to fly at speed into something so flimsy and close to the water. Walking across is a different matter, but he couldn't land on any part of Lake Town because of his velocity and flying style.

Originally Posted by Galendor

Not a joke, given their relatively small wings, dragons must fly like a hummingbird or bumblebee does, with a high-speed rotary wingstroke. Also they have hollow bones for lightness, and very long, sticky tongues for fishing dwarves out of deep holes in the ground. Dragons like Smaug also exude a thick, sticky mucilage from their undersides that allows jewels and other treasure to stick permanently to them. The spot over their heart is mucilage-free, for reasons unknown.

I'd say being so hot would have something to do with their flying ability. Smaug's treasure chamber is hot as I remember, and he could be "quenched" if he were to venture into the lake. A dragon's heat must be connected to its lifeforce/energy (cold blooded?) and would help it lift off the ground. And where in Tolkien's work do we find that Smaug has "relatively small wings"? It is only in his pictures, which, as we have already discussed, are not drawn entirely for accuracy. More for appeal.

If I were to make more speculations about dragon anatomy, they would include the dragons' ability to store energy for long periods of inactivity, which would then be activated in periods of great anger, malicious glee and greed. Dragons sound to me a little like lizards, basking in the sun for energy, which is then stored, and as such living for a long time with little effort. The energy a dragon "basks" in, coincidentally, is derived from the inner fire spirit in the dragon (fea), and partially from stored food energy.

Originally Posted by StW

JRRT says that the people of Laketown have "little time" to prepare for Smaug. It makes some sense that you could cut the ropes on a suspension bridge in "little time" and down the bridge. It does not make sense that you could down that much larger bridge regardless of the verb you want to use. Yes, you can cut down a tree. In how much time with a more primitive saw? Now cut down all those thick pillars, or enough of them supporting that bridge. Now go beyond that and destroy it. All in "little time" as JRRT says they had.

Look, if you are going to criticise Tolkien for writing poorly, and your source for this is his own pictures, you're not making sense to me. There is a simple explanation - the picture is fallible, the text is not. Tell me straight; do you agree or disagree with that explanation? Are you trying to say that Tolkien draws more accurately than he writes, or writes according to his drawings? Sauron, you don't have much room to stand here.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

For your delectation, here's an interesting depiction of the dragon, though not drawn by Tolkien, I hasten to say.



Whether or not the wings shown here are practical for landing on bridges is open to debate.

[Alfirin]

Great dragon. Is that by illustrator Viktor Ambrus? the style seems reminicient.

[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.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by The Sixth Wizard

I'd say being so hot would have something to do with their flying ability.

Maybe so. Or at least, their flying ability might have had something to do with them making fire. This is just speculation, but maybe Smaug was filled with hydrogen (like a zeppelin), which floats, and can also be used for fire. Which explains why maybe Samug didn't want to launch a chiefly aerial attack: It would be harder for him to fly after all that fire-breathing (or maybe he would sink from decreased levels of hydrogen, annd therefore, floating ability), whereas it would not affect his ability to run away.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Galendor

Everyone knows that most if not all dragons have relatively small wings considering their body size, and therefore use a rotary, high-speed and constant wingstroke like a hummingbird or bumblebee to fly. This creates a flying/fighting style that is both humorous and terrifying to behold.
.

'Twas funny at that. Now I have a vivid mental image of a rather fat Smaug with tiny wings buzzing like a bumblebee over the heads of terrified but somewhat giggling villagers

[Sauron the White]

from skip spence

And please StW, don't ask me to explain how they managed to do so. I do not know how they did it, no one here knows. JRRT perhaps had a good idea in his head of how this was done, perhaps he didn't. All we know is what he wrote, and in The Hobbit the bridges of Lake Town were "cut" before Smaug could get there.

Well in truth Skip, we have a great deal more than "all we know is what he wrote". JRRT also gave us visuals of his world. In the case of Laketown, the picture that he himself drew clearly shows a rather substantial bridge with many thick pylons supporting it. It is clearly not a suspension bridge or something with ropes holding it up so that it can be quickly "cut".

That same drawing also evidences wide docks that are built along the same lines of the rest of the town. If Smaug wanted to land, and there is no evidence in the text or in drawings that was his intention, he had ample space to do so on the wide docks surrounding Laketown. But he decided not to.

So we do have much more than just what he wrote.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Well in truth Skip, we have a great deal more than "all we know is what he wrote". JRRT also gave us visuals of his world. In the case of Laketown, the picture that he himself drew clearly shows a rather substantial bridge with many thick pylons supporting it. It is clearly not a suspension bridge or something with ropes holding it up so that it can be quickly "cut".

So, your point is what, exactly? That Tolkien wrote aobut the bridge being cut, but then drew a bridge that didn't look as though it could be cut in order to get his real point - that the bridge was not cut - across?
And you talk about us having faith!

[Sauron the White]

There were bridges in Laketown. Perhaps some of them were strung with rope so that they could be cut. Do not take my heretical word for it as an unbeliever. Use your own powers of observation and look at the Professors own drawing that davem preproduced in this thread. On the far right side is a smaller bridge of far different construction that the chief bridge to the mainland. It appears to more closely resemble the structure of a suspension bridge and may well have ropes which can be cut.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

There were bridges in Laketown. Perhaps some of them were strung with rope so that they could be cut.

So now they only cut some of the bridges? Why? You seem bent on making the passage make even less sense than it does to begin with. I can only shake my head...

Originally Posted by STW

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

Give it a rest, please.

[skip spence]

I don't see how that bridge on the picture could be destroyed very quickly no. As others have pointed out (but you have ignored): JRRTs paintings often contradict his written depictions when it comes to detail. Clearly the bridge on the picture can't be "cut", which is what Bard cries out for in the book. The bridges (note the plural form) JRRT had in mind when he wrote the passage in the book therefore must have been different bridges to the one he painted at another occation.

Tolkien wrote that the bridge or bridges were destroyed quickly and personally I have little difficulty imagining it being done. "It's easy if you try", in the words of John Lennon. Why would you deny yourself the pleasure of it making sense? Or do you perhaps find it more enjoyable to ignore everything that doesn't correlate with your own narrow interpretation of the passage.

And btw, the distance between The Lonely Mountain and Lake Town was rather significant. Although they had little time to destroy the bridge it wasn't a matter of seconds. I would imagine to took Smaug a fair bit of time to reach the town even if he was travelling quickly.

[Sauron the White]

from Skip Spence

I don't see how that bridge on the picture could be destroyed very quickly no

.
Very good.

As others have pointed out (but you have ignored): JRRTs paintings often contradict his written depictions when it comes to detail.

The illustration of Laketown contradicts not one single description of it or Laketown in THE HOBBIT. If I missed the description of the main Laketwon bridge as something different that what is shown in JRRT's own illustration, please refer me to the portion of the text.

Clearly the bridge on the picture can't be "cut", which is what Bard cries out for in the book.

My point to the letter. Thank you for supporting it.

The bridges (note the plural form) JRRT had in mind when he wrote the passage in the book therefore must have been different bridges to the one he painted at another occation.

Again, that is the point I made in the post above yours. We agree.

Tolkien wrote that the bridge was destroyed quickly and personally I have little difficulty imagining it being done. "It's easy if you try", in the words of John Lennon. Why would you deny yourself the pleasure of it making sense? Or do you perhaps find it more enjoyable to ignore everything that doesn't correlate with your own narrow interpretation of the event.

I save my faith and belief for things that cannot be validated by more mundane forms of observation and proof. In this case, I need not try at all since this is not a matter of faith or belief. One can see with their two eyes. We have the illustration by JRRT himself. I have to accept that, as its creator and maker, he knew what both Laketown and its main bridge looked like.

[skip spence]

Sauron the White
I give up. In the op you asked us to try to explain why the bridge of Lake Town was destroyed. Yet seemingly you have no interest whatsoever in trying to understand our explanaitions or discussing them and you constantly ignore anything you can't lash out at, often by (I assume) wilfully misrepresenting our arguments.

I promised myself I wouldn't argue with you the other day yet here I am again. But not any longer. Smell you later!

Edit: Perceived insult removed. "Give piece a chance", to once again quote Lennon. ;-)