Why destroy Laketown's bridge?

[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.

[davem]

The large bridge was cut - Tolkien is clear:

The bridge was gone, and his enemies were on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking. If he plunged into it, a vapour and a steam would arise enough to cover all the land with a mist for
days; but the lake was mightier than he, it would quench him before he could pass through.

You can't get away from the text. "The bridge was cut & his enemies were on an island" cannot be interpreted in any other way than that the big bridge was cut/thrown down.

As to the picture, it is wrong - in Barrels out of Bond we read:

It seemed a town of Men still throve there, built out on bridges far into the water as a protection against enemies of all sorts, and especially against the dragon of the Mountain. From Laketown the barrels were brought up the Forest River. Often they were just tied together like big rafts and poled or rowed up the stream; sometimes they were loaded on to flat boats.

built out on bridges far into the water[ does not conform to the picture, which shows only one large bridge, & Lake Town is hardly 'far out'. Hence, the picture is both correct & not correct (& possibly so is the text). The only explanation I can think of to this dilemma is that Tolkien at some points visualised Esgaroth as being linked to the shore(s) by a number of bridges which could all be cast down (ie they were some form of suspension bridge) & at other points he conceived of it as having one big, substantial bridge

A great bridge made of wood ran out to where on huge piles made of forest trees was built a busy wooden town, not a town of elves but of Men, who still dared to dwell here under the shadow of the distant dragonmountain.

So, there is a single, great bridge built on huge piles of forest trees, which clearly (from the picture) could not be 'cast down' or cut in short order unless it had some form of mechanism built in (possibly of Elvish design???) & at the same time there are a number of bridges which can be cast down - the book seems to contradict itself. Whatever, Tolkien clearly states that when the Dragon attacks the town is an island in deep water, so whether there was one, or many, is not really the issue.

The only possible way of making the two concepts fit is that lake Town was a collection of seperate buildings connected by bridges - but you still have to accept that the big bridge was destroyed in some way because when Smaug attacked it was cut off: 'an island'.

[Morthoron]

Evidently, the folk of Laketown believed that cutting the bridge would either offer protection from Smaug landing, or as davem stated earlier, that cutting the bridge would diffuse the stampeding masses, rather than centralize their egress along one route.

In any case, Smaug did not land, and there was no crush of hysterical refugees flooding the bridge.

[Sauron the White]

davem
I am not arguing that the main bridge was not destroyed. I am saying that it was not one of the bridges which could have been cut because the illustration Tolkien gave us - which is far more detailed than any text description with words - shows a substantial structure built on thick plyons and not a supsension bridge upheld by ropes to be cut.

I think you can question how well this passage was written since JRRT himself says they had "little time" and this main bridge seems to be the type that would take a great deal of effort to not only take down but destroy - and Tolkien seems to think there is a difference.

So, if JRRT says the main bridge was destroyed, then it was destroyed.

This thread was started to question the wisdom of the decision to destroy the bridge as a tactic to fight a fire breathing dragon who is attacking you from the air.

built out on bridges far into the water[ does not conform to the picture, which shows only one large bridge, & Lake Town is hardly 'far out'. Hence, the picture is both correct & not correct (& possibly so is the text).

The picture of Laketown that you reproduced for us shows one angle of Laketown closest to the mainland. Perhaps a more complete aerial view of the entire area would show us something different ... perhaps not. I have no idea and that is all speculation which cannot be proven or disproven. I have no idea what JRRT meant when he used the term "far out" in terms of meters or yards or miles. I also have no idea as to what the exact scale is in the picture. Do you?

So, there is a single, great bridge built on huge piles of forest trees, which clearly (from the picture) could not be 'cast down' or cut in short order unless it had some form of mechanism built in (possibly of Elvish design???) & at the same time there are a number of bridges which can be cast down - the book seems to contradict itself.

Yes, I agree. The picture clearly shows two different kind of bridges.

Whatever, Tolkien clearly states that when the Dragon attacks the town is an island in deep water, so whether there was one, or many, is not really the issue.

Yes. The issue that I began with is that the decision to cast down and destroy the bridge was not a wise one since it meant nothing in stopping a flying fire breathing dragon who was attacking you by air.

The only possible way of making the two concepts fit is that lake Town was a collection of seperate buildings connected by bridges - but you still have to accept that the big bridge was destroyed in some way because when Smaug attacked it was cut off: 'an island'.

As I have said, if JRRT said the bridge was destroyed, then it was destroyed. My main point is that such an action is not the wisest or best tactic employed against a fire breathing dragon attacking you from the air. A different and more minor point was the difficulty - or perhaps impossibility - of actually downing and destroying such a substantial bridge in such "little time" as JRRT says was available to the people of Laketown. However, that is a writing problem. I have no doubt that if this event had happened in LORD OF THE RINGS, it would have been written differently, things explained in more detail, and it would have made much more sense.

Its too bad JRRT never finished his attempt at rewriting THE HOBBIT. Maybe this portion would have been changed. Maybe not.

[davem]

Tolkien's painting of The Death of Smaug shows the great bridge thrown down


Rateliff comments:

The decision for Lake Town to have only one great bridge seems to have been determined through the two illustrations Tolkien drew of the scene apparently created over the Christmas 1936 vacation ..... if so the changes in page proof... would have been made to bring the text into agreement with the illustration 'Mr Baggins' p444

So, it seems that the 'bridges' were part of the original conception but that after drawing the pictures Tolkien changes the text - or at least most of it, as there are still references to both Bridge & bridges. Possibly the most important thing is Tolkien's conception of Esgaroth being 'an island' when Smaug attacked. We have an illustration by Tolkien of the Bridge having been thrown down - therefore it was thrown down (even if its not easy to conceive of how it was done). Why? Well, different theories have been put forward & you pays your money & takes your choice.

[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. ;-)

[Sauron the White]

from skip spence

Sauron the White
I give up. You really are a peace of work, aren't you?

If you are going to try to insult me it might be nice to get the phrase right. Its not peace of work --- its piece of work. I do not remember insulting you. I am merely trying to discuss points you raise in your posts.

from Rikae

So now they only cut some of the bridges? Why?

I would guess that they can only cut which can be cut. Some bridges - the suspension types with ropes - would lend themselves to that procedure. Others - like the main Laketown bridge drawn by JRRT himself - would not lend itself to being cut.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I would guess that they can only cut which can be cut. Some bridges - the suspension types with ropes - would lend themselves to that procedure. Others - like the main Laketown bridge drawn by JRRT himself - would not lend itself to being cut.

Yes, I know that is your theory, but again, why? If you expect us to believe they cut only some of the bridges, leaving some intact, you're going to need to explain what possible purpose that would serve - otherwise, the simplest and therefore most reasonable explanation is that all the bridges were cut, regardless of whether the bridge in the illustration looks easy to destroy or not (it isn't a blueprint drawn by an architect, I hope you realize).

EDIT Ah - I see you've abandoned that tactic:

Originally Posted by STW

As I have said, if JRRT said the bridge was destroyed, then it was destroyed. My main point is that such an action is not the wisest or best tactic employed against a fire breathing dragon attacking you from the air.

However, I would like to point out that, just slightly earlier in the thread, you did say:

Originally Posted by STW

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.


Quote:
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.

So, are you now accepting the idea that the illustration is misleading, by agreeing that all the bridges were cut?

As for the wisdom of the destruction of the bridge -how was Smaug "foiled" if he didn't intend to cross the bridge? Your explanation - that it spoiled some of his fun - indirectly supports the idea that destroying the bridge was a good tactic if you mean that Smaug could have then killed more of the Lakemen... on the other hand, the suggestion that Smaug's intention was to destroy the bridges himself, and his fun was spoiled that way, makes no sense in light of the fact that the next half of the sentence is "and his enemies were on an island in deep water too deep and dark and cool for his liking." What is your explanation for the inclusion of that phrase?