Why destroy Laketown's bridge?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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.

The trouble with that interpretation, though, is that Tolkien does tell us Smaug was foiled - so the Lakemen's action was effective in some way. Now, I suppose it's possible that they cut down the bridge to foil Smaug in one way while he was actually foiled in a completely different way (they thought he had one plan involving the bridge while he really had another), but the simplest and most likely explanation is that the plan they thought he had and the one he actually had were the same.