Why destroy Laketown's bridge?

[The Sixth Wizard]

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

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!

[alatar]

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.'

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

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.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by alatar

..and it had the wit to attack Frodo Ringbearer first, knowing that it too could be a Ringlord if it claimed the Ring..

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.

[Morthoron]

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?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

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!

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

I am absolute confident that if they brought down the bridge in some amazing or elaborate way, then it would have made the story.

The Lord of the Bridge

Characters: The watcher's third cousin, twice removed