Well, this is what you said:
Here, you ask Mac if he thinks the railing would restrain Smaug if he "lost his balance". Are you arguing that Smaug would be just as surefooted in the process of landing as he would while walking? Sure, that's possible - but the point is, it is also quite possible he wasn't, and the this makes more sense in the light of the text itself.

Ok, apparently it is significant (in Smaug's being foiled) that the bridge is gone, so clearly he had plans involving the bridge. What could those plans be?
"His foes were on an island in deep water" - clearly the water is a problem - which it would not be if he preferred to attack by air.
"if he plunged into it" - it appears he has a choice between his plan involving the bridge, risking "plunging into" the water, and what he subsequently does (attack by air).
"it would quench him before he could pass through". Now, there is no sense in saying this unless, were it otherwise, he would try to "pass through" - which means, if the water would not quench him, he would have attempted a land (or water) attack.

Now, this may not be the best possible interpretation of the passage, but I haven't heard a more plausible one proposed.

I really think you overestimate the abilities of a handful of Lakemen - whatever number could fit on the bridge at once - facing toward Smaug's head (and fire).

Where was this done, please? Who stated we wanted to ignore the illustration? Who said we should pretend it does not exist?

Sauron, as Rikae has just stated, landing is by far more difficult than walking. I thought that was too obvious to be pointed out.

No, I don't. However, I got the feeling his wings weren't the size they are in the picture Esty posted. And if we take a look at the second of Tolkien's pictures that davem posted, and take the measurements suggested there, I see my point backed. I didn't claim that I proved something, in case you forgot, I just pointed out that the inability of Smaug to land in Laketown is plausible.

Of course not. If you would have taken the time to properly read my post, you might even have spotted that I did not claim that. It's conjecture that Smaug's attack was most effective by air. This leaves the possibility that the devastating air attack was not devastating enough to Smaug's liking, which is exactly what the text suggests!

-Glaurung conquered Nargothrond on foot.
-The Dwarves, who have more of a resistance to fire (due to armour and nature) than Men, managed to injure Glaurung - under heavy losses.
-An army of walking dragons destroyed Gondolin.
All this they did with unprotected bellies, which makes them less effective ground attackers than Smaug. Glaurung was killed by one of the greatest men in ME-history - who had to hide and surprise-attack him. We are not told that any other dragon has ever lost his life (prior to the War of Wrath, that is).

Again, I did not claim wings are useless to dragons. They add a deadly alternative attack to them, plus the many other benefits like speedy transportation and elevated perspective. Flying makes a dragon more powerful, but it is stated nowhere, I think, that it becomes their chief kind of attack.


Rikae has just given it. The text says that due to the destroying of the bridges, he was foiled. This directly implies that the bridges had some vital part in the then foiled plans of Smaug. What this vital part is, is left unclear. We suggest that he intended to walk over it. We say that this is the only valid conclusion, because there doesn't seem to be any other conceivable use for it. This is as much of a proof we can give you.

You say it isn't so. If you do not accept it, then what other conclusion do you draw?

from Rikae

Given the age of Smaug, given the number of landings he has executed in his long lifetime, given the very flat and wide nature of the docks..... yes Rikae, I think he would be just as surefooted in landing on the docks as he would walking across a bridge ... and I would add especially a bridge that he would be met with resistance upon.

from Bethberry

Several have said to use the text and not the illustrations. Here is a very clear one.

from davem today at 2:12 on this very page

and from davem yesterday

I am pretty sure that if there was an illustration of 100 townspeople dynamiting the Laketown bridge it certainly would have been used to try and disprove my main point. But since the illustration by JRRT shows a substantial bridge supported by numerous and thick pylons and supports my point that it is not easily thrown down and destroyed we get the convenient call to forget the illustrations.

from Macalaure

Yes, that is true. It is also true that he is one of greatest men in ME history because he did perform that deed. Perhaps if someone in Laketown they would establish their storied reputation? But that is speculation. I find it interesting that some of the topography of Laketown would offer much the same opportunity as was available to Turin. The town had canals and smaller bridges and when Smaug stepped across a smart armed man could have attempted the same thing as Turin did. At least it was possible should the situation present itself.

With all due respect - NO she did not. What she provided was more conjecture and supposition based on how she sees and reads the text. I agree that Smaug had plans for the bridge. What were those plans I do not know. It is possible that he wanted to destroy it himself just for the satisfaction of it. It is possible he saw the bridge as a way to trap hundreds of fleeing people and get them all in one very convenient place. Nothing in the text indicates otherwise. It merely says Smaug was foiled in his plans but we know nothing of what they were.

Although we are told that he greatly enjoyed the game of killing and hunting the people and intended to do that to those who escaped. Perhaps killing those trying to also escape by bridge was just the first round in his cat and mouse game? I really do not know for a fact and neither does anyone else.

We seem to have a different kind of perception. If I look at the illustrations, I do not see docks that are very wide. I see docks that, without the houses and the close vicinity to water, would be just wide enough for him to land.

About the picture: If it wouldn't show something which is contradicting to the book, nobody would be willing to discard it. You seem to try to use the picture in order to disprove the book, which is - I'm sorry - ridiculous.

Just one question (and I think I already asked it and didn't get an answer) - if this was the case, how is the fact that his enemies are now "on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking" relevant? Why did Tolkien include that in the second half of the sentence, according to your theory?
Furthermore, why add "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" if all he had in mind was a cat-and-mouse game involving the bridge (why would there be any question of him "plunging into" or "passing through" the water at all in that case?) Why explain, that is, why he can't risk falling into the water or pass through it, if that were never an issue anyway?

Why would Smaug need to land at all? I have never understood why he would need to land at all. Of course I am thinking that stealth bombers actually do better in the air than on land. I don't know if that is a fair comparison, but if I could breath fire, destroy towns and fly, I wouldn't be caught walking across a bridge.

here is the description by JRRT in the text

Macaluare asks

You claim that the picture contradicts the text. Could you take the above description by JRRT and explain where it contradicts what he shows in the picture because I see no such problem or difficulty.

from Rikae

I have no "theory" about what that passage means.

On Smaug fearing to cross the bridge:

Well, dragon legs seem very stable and low to the ground. For someone to cause this misstep, he would have to get past the fire-breathing, sharp-toothed, hungry head of the dragon to apply some force to get Smaug off balance. I don't think that Laketown had any warriors with that sort of strength and toughness.

Smaug himself could make a sudden move while under attack and execute that "misstep" all on his own. An arrow in the eye or near it could also cause him to move rather quickly and misstep crashing into the water.

Why could his misstep occur only on the docks and not on the bridge? It would seem that both present the same problem.

Anglo-Saxon warriors rode into battle & then fought on foot. Even against enemy cavalry they would dismount, set up their shield wall & literally stand their ground. You may as well ask why, if they had horses they wouldn't use them in battle. They didn't use them because that wasn't the way they fought. Now, it may well be that Dragons, being originally earth-bound, naturally fought on foot & if they had the option only used their wings to get from A to B....or it may not. The point though, is that the mere fact that dragons had the capability of aerial assault doesn't mean they would choose to fight in that way.

Going back to the first mention of Smaug's attack on the Lonely Mountain we find:
Smaug flies to the mountain, lands on it, & then comes down the slopes & sets the woods on fire. I take that to mean that he landed & then crawled down. The alternative, that he landed, then took off & flew down to the woods doesn't make sense - why land on the mountain-top at all - why not just fly to the woods directly?

Ok - but what do you think it means?

That, as you probably well know, is not the part of the text it appears to contradict (that part being the destruction of the bridge in little time).

So you argue against our explanation of the passage by explaining the first part and ignoring the second, about which you have "no 'theory'". Thank you for making that clear.
(Or are you, with the scare quotes, suggesting that you have no 'theory', but rather access to some sort of "fact" about why Tolkien brought up the issue of plunging into the water?)

Hmmm. Hummm. Harrroooom. Let us not be hasty in condemning these calls about the reliablity of the pictures. You seem to have overlooked some of the reasons given.

davem points out that perspective is wrong in one illustration.

Tiny Bilbo

Perhaps the next step is to examine and cross examine all of Tolkien's illustrations to see if this characteristic is present in the entire spectrum of Tolkien's illustrations. And then we could discuss the merits of perspective per se. But davem's call was based on some evidence.

Ibrin provides a quotation from Tolkien himself, from the Letters:

My own pictures are an unsafe guide.

That tag for the link is a quotation from Tolkien; Ibrin says it is in Letter #27. Perhaps someone could check to verify if she has quoted it correctly and fairly and within context? I'll reiterate the full quotation from Tolkien just so we can see what reason she offerred for suggesting that the illustrations do not have authorial authority:

Oh, but wait! This was written in relation to Tolkien's ability to draw hobbits, not in relation to his ability to draw landscapes. Funny, I seem to recall several of Tolkien's landscapes which lack perspective or depth. But perhaps we need an Art Historian to provide a reliable evaluation of Tolkien's illustrations, as the man himself obviously was too humble and modest about his talents.

So therefore, based on the examples of these two posters, davem and Ibrin (the latter of whom StW completely ignored) would appear that the arguments of only one person at least fall into this category:


And as for Boxers and Dragons, well, let us enjoy ourselves with contemplating these possibilities:


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64...xersdragon.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64...ersdragon3.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64...ragonwelsh.jpg

Who said that? What was said was that it would be more likely to occur during landing than while walking.

Excellent point. Not to mention that "came down the slopes" doesn't sound the least bit like it describes flight.

Like I said before, you're only regarding the quotes that support your view and disregard everything else.

The view I (and almost all others) presented is the only plausible one, despite all you said. If your only point is that no statement can be made, and that Tolkien isn't beyond all contrivable doubt clear in what he says, then have it.

davem & others
the faults on one picture do not apply to the picture of a different subject.

The behavior of Smaug - and some of that behavior is inferred by you - does not mean he behaved like that in each and every case.

One does not prove or disprove the other.

You push on my meaning of this ... okay .... your wish is my command

what does this mean

It means that Smaug did not like water. So its easy to then see that he would want to be as far away from it as possible. Thus, an attack for the air was his preferred mode of attack and would not land being closer to the water.

Happy now?

In what way, then, was he 'foiled' by the destruction of the bridge(s)? The implication is that he couldn't get to his 'enemies' as he first intended - because they were on an island in deep water.

You are aware that that quote comes after Smaug found the bridges destroyed? Therefore, it was his preferred mode of attack after whatever mysterious mode of attack he had in mind before. You will find nobody disagreeing on that.

from davem

As I have said in several places here, because JRRT does not tell us in what Smaug was foiled in, its all conjecture and speculation. What is my speculation?
Smaug could have intended to destroy the bridge himself for sheer enjoyment and was thus foiled in that plan.
Smaug could have intended to trap fleeing townspeople on the bridge and had hopes of incinerating many with one quick blast and was foiled in that plan.

And, as I have repeatedly said, if it was his intention to go on the island he had ample space on the docks which are clearly even wider than the bridge. He did not do so.

You infer that he intended to cross the bridge to justify the order to destroy the bridges. Even though that order is somewhat silly and poor military strategy against a fire breathing creature who is attacking you from the air.

Its poorly, planned out and poorly written. Burn me at the stake for that. I have no doubt that if this were LOTR, JRRT would have fully fleshed it out so that it made sense.

I'd rather have a dragon attack from the air where he can only burn. On the ground he can burn the same buildings as from the air, destroy them directly, and feed on the townsfolk.

And, as several people have repeatedly said, this THEORY completly ignores the second half of the passage.
And you have been repeatedly told why you cannot base such an assumption on the picture alone, especially where the text would suggest otherwise.

One thing you forgot to mention - he actually attacked from the air after the bridges were destroyed, and after he was oh-so-mysteriously foiled by this. While the bridges were being destroyed he was getting from point A to point B through the air.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Excuse me for not burning you at the stake, but I have a five page essay on Browning due yesterday and three misbehaving children to deal with, so you'll just have to go without your martyrdom for the time being. ;)

It is foolish to go back and forth on this since we obviously see this so very very differently. We are repeating ourselves over and over again.

I do not see things your way. I do not see these things the way that you do. I do not make the same assumptions that you do. I do not make the same inferences that you do. You are willing to make jumps in reason and supposition that I am not willing to make. Where you see sense - I see nonsense.

a violin, E flat, 10 seconds
 

After all this downing of the Bridge, I hope you won't be drowning in the Browning paper, Rikae.

yes indeed; it's not The Boxer; it is The Dangling Conversation.

But I did appreciate the small refrain of Bridge Over Troubled Waters which two of our members played.

And I want everyone to know that I could not find one pair of Lord of The Rings boxers. I found Star wars ones, and Harry Potter ones, and Shrek ones, but not one having anything to do with Tolkien. The Welsh dragon was the closest.

Un-bridging
 

Evenin' all,

at the risk of putting the cat firmly back amongst the pigeons (or should I say Dragon amonst the Lakemen), I believe the bridge as shown in the drawing of Laketown (somewhere a few pages ago, you know, the first one) is easily 'cut-able'.

From the side view illustration the bridge seems impressively stoutly constructed. However, no top-view is shown. Therefore it is as likely as not that the 'road surface' along the bridge is made of big planks (I can see no other practical alternative). By all means good solid planks the size of railway sleepers indeed, but planks all the same.

Now IF these are laid across the supporting beams and not 'tied in' to the rest of the structure by being jointed or nailed (which is, I think, entirely plausible, for obvious defensive purposes), then you could quite easily get a gang of chaps, or indeed chapesses, to lever them up with crowbars and chuck them over the side of the bridge. One could even simply drag the planks back to the town-end if desired.

Although this would not stop individual people precariously making their way across the framework in single file (such as at Worcester in 1651), I think that it would make it very difficult for Smaug to get across. Therefore the bridge would be 'cut' (in the same way as one 'cuts' a road) and the bridge planks would be 'thrown down'. Et voila! From Smaug's point of view the town is now effectively an island.

PS. Is someone running this thread for a bet? ;)

Personally, I am hoping for an abridged version of this whole conversation.

Not wishing to go too far afield, but I saw Simon and Garfunkel on their reunion tour in the mid-90's, and I will say that it is one of the best concerts I've ever seen. Garfunkel's rendition of BOTW was great! So was Scarborough Fair.

Ummm...would Hobbitish underwear be described as briefs?

Sorry for the digression from this fascinating discussion, but I said all that was necessary regarding this diatribe many posts ago (from my point of view, of course).

I quite agree - you have repeated your standpoint often enough to hammer it firmly into the heads of all other members. Others have valiantly attempted to make points for other views. All that can be said has been said. Only one thing is lacking - humour! Several posters have attempted to add a light-hearted, friendly tone of conversation, unfortunately without success in getting the general discussion away from embittered battling.

How about if I move this thread to the Mirth forum so that it loses the rancour?! :Merisu:

I think they would wear more in the way of "shorts".
*artificial laughter*

Of course, hobbit women would be wearing their "smalls"!
*raucous artificial laughter*

Esty:

YES!

I'd like to thank whomever posited the observation that Smaug may not have wanted to attack the city entirely from the air, but as there was no bridge or boat to get him to the city, he was forced into plan B, namely to burn the city and hope that the treasures therein would somehow be salvageable. He may even have let some persons go, as they would do the hauling for him for cheap, and when the treasures reached the shore, later he could gather them up along with a snack or two.

Anyway, I finally figured out how the bridge was brought down, and had to look no further than LotR. What aquatic creature was typically found living outside dwelling places which existed that could rip down large wooden structures in seconds? Why, it's the Watcher in the Water!

Why couldn't the Laketown persons, like the Morian orcs, have entered into contract with a cousin of said creature? It could feed on any garbage or other stuff dropped down to it, and in return it would guard the bridge. Surely you didn't think that Bard and a few stout fellows were all that protected the town?

When Smaug appeared, the creature could have easily thrown down the bridge and then hid in the safety of the deep water, 'cleaning up' those Laketown persons that were 'sinkers.'

If one can reason witha creature like the watcher, then there is nothing speaking against your theory.

The thing is that we have absolutely no reason to think that there was such a creature, if there was then it would have been mentioned. I am absolute confident that if they brought down the bridge in some amazing or elaborate way, then it would have made the story.

Since we are not told about it on has to assume that it was done in a relatively normal and uninteresting way. . . as I said before: Bridges are often thrown down, just because a bridge looks solid it does not mean that it has to take a very long time.

We know that the bridge Turin let build was impossible to destroy in a hurry as it was hughe and made of stone, much unlike the bridge if Esgaroth. Their bridge was wooden and seemingly not amazingly big, Actually the fact that Tolkien points out that the bridge over the Narog is difficult to tear down, sugest that normally throwing down a bridge was not very difficult.

It should be obvious that one can reason with such a creature. It was stationed to guard the west gate of Moria, when surely it would have chosen a more fruitful path to trap (i.e. no Dwarves for 30 years!). One doesn't subsist on holly berries alone...and it had the wit to attack Frodo Ringbearer first, knowing that it too could be a Ringlord if it claimed the Ring.

"I will flood all of Middle Earth and make it a large pond. All will bow down to me and drown in despair (and all of that water)!"

And just what was the origin of said Watcher? Melkor can mock, not create, and so to make a Watcher, he started with a Washer of the Water, which was a cheery creature that would scrub the undersides of Elven boats that they might not mar or stain the beaches or docks of fair Avallónë.

Whoa there. Everyone's been positing a way to bring down a long large wooden bridge, and yet the mechanism is not defined. How does anyone therefore know conclusively how it was done? Have I violated any of the text? Surely the Master and only a few others knew of the creature and of its special role in the last defense of the town, as we all know that treachery has sunk more than one city. And if you had a Watcher under your bridge, would you tell everyone? Bad for trade and all that.

Surely Tolkien didn't take the time to detail the creature or the mechanism as it would have slowed the story and all. There's that pacing thing.

But how fun of a discussion does that make for? On the other hand, being too silly, as the above, may make the thread uninteresting as well.

If only Turin et al had Trolls, or Giants, with lasers...;)

Maybe it was just a mistake from the beginning? Through the dark and murky waters the Washer might have mistaken Frodo for a mop with that wooly hair and all. He was merely trying to clean up his pond.

To sum things up, I'd like to offer a recitation from Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy album:

I'm just trying to find the bridge...

Has anybody seen the bridge?

Have you seen the bridge?

I ain't seen the bridge!

Where's that confounded bridge?

So Alatar, lets say the watcher is unhappy with the number of dwarves he can eat at the gates of Moria. . . what does he do? For me it seems that these kind of creatures has a very limited habitat and no great possibilities of migrating.

It attacks Frodo first, but you and I know that the orcs of Moria had no idea the fellowship was comming therefor they could not tell the watcher what to look out for.

How do you suppose the master would keep it from everybody else that a humongous creature was living under the town? How would he "reason" with it and not reveal it? Anyways it needed not be bad for buisness if there was a Watcher that could be reasoned with, that would only increase the safty of Esgaroth and make it a better place for trading.

I appologise for not having quoted you in my reply, but it seemed like an awful work. . . . anyways In Conclusion: I am correct and win!

The Lord of the Bridge

Characters: The watcher's third cousin, twice removed

In fact it could become a tourist attraction...

Not so sure about that.

I can see trouble with the whole arrangement too. Just imagine the watcher grabbing some kid with a toy ring and hoisting him up the air while his mother on the bridge cries: "Try to reason with it, dear!"

but if the watcher graps a child like that then it surely cannot be reasoned with. . . and Alatar's idea based on the assumption that it can be reasoned with.