[Otterhound]

Why is a bridge as thick as it is generally accepted to be ?
Of course , there needs to be sufficient mass to support the saddle/s .
What about elsewhere ?
Is the thickness as it is rearward of the area that supports the saddle/s the way that it is simply in order to provide a mating/anchoring surface for bridge pins ?
If bridge pins are not used , is this area necessary ?
The majority of pinless designs anchor the pins to the bridge rearward of the saddle and from above the top . This necessitates the required material to provide support for the task of anchoring the strings under tension .
Should the strings be anchored below the top , this material seems to be unnecessary .
The material used to anchor the pins or support the string ends becomes purposeless mass . Because of this the bridge can be trimmed to eliminate this now unnecessary mass or am I wrong about this ?
Please keep the accepted idea of bridge/neck geometry out of this . I am not questioning that . I am only questioning the area of the bridge itself behind the saddle/s . Yes , they are 2 separate things .
Let the slings and arrows fly .