# Aragorn's Weapon



## Harad (Feb 16, 2002)

> - I did not know, - he answered. - But I am Aragorn, and those verses go with that name. - He drew out his sword, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt. - Not much use is it, Sam? - said Strider. - But the time is near when it shall be forged anew. Sam said nothing.



Did Aragorn really use as his primary weapon the hilt-shard of Narsil for, perhaps, 70 years of Rangering?


----------



## daisy (Feb 16, 2002)

I have also been confused by the Narsil angle - I always thought it wasn't with him and was being forged for him and was given to him , but now I find on page 188 of my copy, Aragorn bringing out his sword and, " they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt.'Not much use is it, Sam?', said Strider. 'But the time is near when it shall be forged anew."
So it seems he has been running around with a broken sword, and perhaps the shard is with Elrond? Or, perhaps the sword is broken , but not in pieces, but broken in two vertically?
And then it was re-forged by the elves and re-named but yes it seems he ran around for about seventy years with a broken sword and didn't he have a bow?

Perhaps not the 'expert' you were looking for but I gave it a shot!


----------



## aragil (Feb 16, 2002)

Well, I've read from several very disreputable tertiary sources, and they theorize that Aragorn probably had another weapon which he carried around most of the time, and that he probably did use a bow, being such an excellent woodsman. Gandalf had told Aragorn to look out for the Hobbits, and in that event he might have been toting Narsil as a special occasion. Perhaps he thought the Hobbits knew Bilbo's rhyme, or perhaps he thought he was going to the doom of the free world, and so decided that it would be best to be carrying his ancestor's sword when the end came.
Anyway, I also thought it was odd for Aragorn to be toting around the heirloom, and wasn't entirely upset that in the movie Aragorn had left it in the shrine.


----------



## daisy (Feb 16, 2002)

It seems you and I used the same quote here- so are you asking why he was carrying around the broken sword or what, seeing as you already knew it was with him pre-Council...


----------



## Harad (Feb 16, 2002)

In the movie he uses a bow next to Legolas at Moria. Talk about a paucity of evidence!


----------



## daisy (Feb 16, 2002)

So there is no mention of other weaponry in LOTR ? i seem to recall a passage where he is described as just having the sword.Of course, he also takes the blade of the nazgul with him after Frodo is stabbed but this probably doesn't count....
So far I haven't found any mention of another weapon other than Narsil....Have you?


----------



## Harad (Feb 16, 2002)

We are only talking about the period up until Rivendell. But of course this covers the 60 years before LOTR started.

How about when Aragorn, in disguise, performs his "errantries" in Rohan and Gondor. Wouldnt it have been odd for him to whip out a hilt-shard as a weapon? Wouldnt the locals have been amazed, and maybe start to put 2+2 together?

I dunno.


----------



## Landroval (Feb 16, 2002)

Right, or wouldn't they think "What a loser, can't he get a whole sword?". I vote for the "special occasion" theory.

Landroval


----------



## Dhôn-Buri-Dhôn (Feb 16, 2002)

When the Company set out from Rivendell, Aragorn is described as having "Anduril but no other weapon..." (Anduril is the new name of the re-forged Narsil.)

But I can't find any reference to any other weapon he might have carried in the pre-Fellowship days. Yet it's hard to imagine him armed only with a stumpy little sword-fragment!


----------



## daisy (Feb 16, 2002)

*But his gorgeousness*

He also has his hypnotic eyes and babe-licious bod!!!!( of course this is slightly sarcastic....ooops wrong thread!).


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Feb 17, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Donnie B. _
> *When the Company set out from Rivendell, Aragorn is described as having "Anduril but no other weapon..." (Anduril is the new name of the re-forged Narsil.)
> 
> But I can't find any reference to any other weapon he might have carried in the pre-Fellowship days. Yet it's hard to imagine him armed only with a stumpy little sword-fragment! *





This exaclty what i would have said. Well done Donnie B. But this is what i beleive in.


----------



## Elfarmari (Feb 17, 2002)

In Appendix A of LotR, it says that Elrond gave Aragorn the shards of Narsil when Aragorn was 20.


> and here also are the shards of Narsil. With these you may yet do great deeds. .


 From this, I would think he carried with him and used them, but I'm not sure what good a broken sword would do. 

I know it doesn't say this anywhere in the book, but I always pictured him carrying another sword, or a bow or something.


----------



## Harad (Feb 17, 2002)

From age 20 on would cover all his time in Rohan and Gondor and most of his rangering. If he kept other weapons, it unlikely there was another sword, since his scabbard was occupied with Narsil. The two scabbard theory?


----------



## ¤-Elessar-¤ (Feb 17, 2002)

dont you think that maybe he kept the sword with him out of respect for his lineage and his forefathers? He wouldn't be seen in gondor weilding the shards of Narsil, he simply toted them sentamentally(sp)


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 17, 2002)

I always assumed that when Elrond said "Here are the shards of Narsil, with which you will do great things" he was refering to the sword as a whole, not the shards of it, suggesting that Aragorn would have it reforged someday and use it. I can't see much fighting with a broken sword. 
I agree with the carrying it for sentimental reasons theory. The only fighting he did before it was reforged in the book was with brands. What good would a sword be against Wraiths? I think he would've had to have carried another weapon during errantry, probably he was armed by whatever throne he served. He would've kept the blade hidden, however. 
My brother hates Aragorn because of his sword, by the way. I love Aragorn and was always talking about him adoringly. Then Ben got the Two Towers on book on tape. He comes to me. "I can't believe you like this guy. He is obsessed with his sword. He won't leave it out in the hall for five minutes so he can talk with a king. Come on. The things already been broken once. Was he afraid they'd break it again?"
I can't explain things like honor to Ben...


----------



## Harad (Feb 17, 2002)

He was a Ranger living in a very dangerous world. He fought in Rohan and Gondor for the King and Steward there. His major, or only weapon, would not be for "sentimental" value, but for "killing" value. His forefathers, Chiefs of the Rangers, only averaged 60 years each in that dangerous job. I would think that Aragorn, being a bright guy, would not handicap himself using a hilt-shard rather than a complete sword. Maybe the hilt-shard of Narsil was good enough. One has to argue that the Narsil hilt-shard was a better weapon than another sword, that was complete.


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 17, 2002)

Well, I'm sure he probably did have other weapons, he just continually carried Narsil. Perhaps it WAS stronger as a hilt than other swords.

What is the average sword length? Narsil was broken a foot below the hilt. Was that broken in half or was a forth of it gone?

Oh well... I am going to go exercise...


----------



## Harad (Feb 17, 2002)

A foot long "sword" would be a huge handicap in any battle. Typical sword lengths are 3-4 feet.


----------



## Eonwe (Feb 17, 2002)

Remember when Pippin or Merry comes back and says there are Trolls ahead, and he just gets a big branch? And he uses fire against the Nazgul.

It is pretty hard to believe, esp. with his jaunts in Rohan and Gondor, and the shards of Narsil would be pretty difficult to hide. I will check UT to see if there is anything about him carrying another weapon in Gondor or Rohan.


----------



## Eonwe (Feb 17, 2002)

Remember when Pippin or Merry comes back and says there are Trolls ahead, and he just gets a big branch? And he uses fire against the Nazgul.

It is pretty hard to believe, esp. with his jaunts in Rohan and Gondor, and the shards of Narsil would be pretty difficult to hide. I will check UT to see if there is anything about him carrying another weapon in Gondor or Rohan.


----------



## Harad (Feb 17, 2002)

How sad the the future King of ME has to use a branch to fight with.


----------



## daisy (Feb 17, 2002)

*Better than a ham!*

I think this makes him even more kingly!


----------



## Grond (Feb 17, 2002)

"He himself overthrew the Captain of the Haven on the quays, and then he withdrew his fleet with small loss..." from LotR, Appendix A. This quote tells of Aragorn in his Thorongil guise while on errantry in Gondor. He has just attacked and defeated the Corsairs of Umbar, leaving many ships burning in his wake. It is hard to imagine him fighting the Captain of the Haven with the hilt shard of Narsil. It also seems highly unlikely that he would even carry it on his person. When he announced his sword and its lineage to Eomer years later while rising up out of the grass with Legolas and Gimli, Eomer seemed to know of the legend. If the legend was known in Rohan, then it was assuredly known in Gondor. With Thorongil being a great Captain, loved above all by Ecthelion, you would think that his carrying around a hilt shard would have been entirely too suspect. I imagine he had another sword of great but lesser lineage to fight with until Narsil could be reforged. But, in searching LotR, Sil, UT and HoMe, I find no definitive answer on this subject.


----------



## Harad (Feb 17, 2002)

And what conceivable reason would he be carrying Narsil in Bree? Enscabbared? Shirley, not to impress the hobbits? If Narsil was enscabbared, then no other sword would be available, unless you embrace the 2-scabbard theory. If Aragorn expected to fight the Nazgul, did he plan on using a branch, burning or otherwise?


----------



## daisy (Feb 17, 2002)

I don't think he expected to fight the Nazgul because he must have known they would have no chance in out and out combat. I just don't get the feeling Aragorn was running around fighting people or other creatures - is there any mention of him getting into combat - I dimly remember him and Gandalf getting into some scraps but....


----------



## Harad (Feb 17, 2002)

Aragorn was the Chief of the Rangers of the North. Check out his snappy comeback to Boromir at the CoE. Heck yes, he was fighting all sorts of nasties, even aside from his errantries in Rohan and Gondor. He was NOT a desk-chair general.


----------



## daisy (Feb 17, 2002)

*What about the vulcan death grip?*

What about those cool boot knives??


----------



## Harad (Feb 17, 2002)

Yes yes...and the nunchucks and the brass knucks and the garotte and the flick knife and the chloroform and the pepperspray and the derringer and the potato mashers and the slim jims and the katy-bar-the-doors and the snicker-snees and the russian roulettes and the pottsville pigstickers and the dangerous liaisons and the high-tops and the arty-chokes and the hog-warts and the french ticklers.

But this is all supposition. Where is the literary evidence?


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 17, 2002)

Where would Aragorn have left Narsil when he wasn't traveling, though? I always wondered if the Ranger's had a city or at least village. None is mentioned. Where does he winter when not in Rivendale? The whole Ranger community doesn't live in Rivendale,and I assume some of these men have families, or else there would eventually not be any Rangers... 
I assume the guy took some luggage with him... A change of clothes perhaps (Of course, that he might not of is a difference between male and female that female cannot comprehend.)... on his travels. He obviously didn't have a sword with him. You can hide a sword in a saddle bag. I always imagined him doing something like that in his travels. Perhaps it was a special occasion in Bree. Perhaps he didn't particularly prefer swords to burning brands. The guy is a mystery, for gosh sakes. He doesn't have to be understandable. 
Maybe Gandalf had told him to drag along the sword. Perhaps it was like Excaliber... you can't be wounded when you have Excaliber's sheeth, I believe. Maybe something to do with good luck. He'd give his ring to Arwen. Allow the guy to keep at least one of his heir looms handy. 
Maybe there was danger of someone stealing it and pretending to be him. Maybe it was a form of identification. WHo knows?
The guy

Ummmm... by the way, Aragorn wasn't grabbing a branch to fight any trolls. I don't know whether he took it as an extra precaution, just in case everything about trolls had suddenly been reversed, if it was an attempt to make the hobbit's think he was doing something about it, or if he wanted to hit the hobbits over the head with it for bothering him, but he knew very well that it was the middle of the day and no trolls would be up.


----------



## Grond (Feb 18, 2002)

Maybe Aragorn didn't start carrying Anduril until he knew for sure that the One Ring had been found. That would explain how he fought before anyway. He wasn't sure that the One Ring had been found until sometime very close to the time he met the Hobbits in Bree. He was fully aware of their mission, so I assume he was briefed by Gandalf in Rivendell? I haven't checked the book to see if this theory has merit but it would make sense.

Harad, notice that the movie handled it by keeping the sword in Rivendell. Maybe that's where the sword was kept until Aragorn knew his destiny was moving forward, when the One Ring was found.


----------



## Harad (Feb 18, 2002)

Grond,
I sincerely appreciate (and I wouldnt say it unless I meant it) your attempt to answer this question, so please do not take this as a criticism since you are flailing for an answer like everybody else. 

Why would Aragorn, switch whatever functional weapon he had been using, for the hilt-shard of Narsil, just when things got REALLY dangerous, ie. when the Ring was found? It was pointed out that Elrond gave Narsil to Aragorn when he was 20 (or 67 years before).

No...I am sorry to conclude that there is no good reason for the Bree revelation. The only "justification" is again a literary one. It makes for a good "show." Witness the Bakshi version which is pretty faithful to the book and effective theater. However, no one has been able to make it sensible to me in terms of Aragorn's "real" life as a Knight-Errant and Ranger. The movie version, as it does in other instances I have mentioned (to some consternation) seems to "smooth over" this rough spot.

Finally, I still consider LOTR to be a literary masterpiece. Its just my forever-questing mind that leads me down such paths. I can't help myself.


----------



## lilhobo (Feb 18, 2002)

there was no revelation in bree as far as i can remember! that was just Bakshi let aragorn go to the wild with half a sword !!! 

i thought we only saw anduril with Bilbo verse at the council of elrond


----------



## Grond (Feb 18, 2002)

Harad, I must totally agree with you. What in the wide, wide world of sports is the most hale man in all of Middle-earth doing carrying around a 1 foot sword. I guess he could club someone to death with the pommel or maybe it was really accurately thrown.

This is one that I can't rationalize. I keep picturing Thorongil on the quay at the Bay fighting the Captain of the Corsairs. The Captain pulls out a four and 1/2 foot Claymore and Aragorn pulls out the hilt shard of Narsil. Monty Python would make a heck of a film out of that scene. haha!


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Feb 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *Harad, I must totally agree with you. What in the wide, wide world of sports is the most hale man in all of Middle-earth doing carrying around a 1 foot sword. I guess he could club someone to death with the pommel or maybe it was really accurately thrown.
> 
> This is one that I can't rationalize. I keep picturing Thorongil on the quay at the Bay fighting the Captain of the Corsairs. The Captain pulls out a four and 1/2 foot Claymore and Aragorn pulls out the hilt shard of Narsil. Monty Python would make a heck of a film out of that scene. haha! *





Also grond remeber Aragorn said that he would suffer no other mortal man to touch anduril and if anyone draws the sword of elendil bar elendil death shall come to him/her. I think that he would suffer no other person to take it also who better to keep it safe then the best huntsemen west of the sea? I think he carried around with him as well as a bow and another weapon.


----------



## Strider97 (Feb 18, 2002)

Reading the opening pages of the Ring goes South when Tolkien asserts that the best hope of the Fellowship was in stealth and speed andd not weapons of war Aragorn is said to take only Anduril. It seems like Aragorn tooks weapons as needed and carried only a bow and the shards of Narsil on a regular basis. The bow is from is statment earlier that he has some skill as a hunter and they will not go hungry on their journey to Rivendell from Bree. Also remember when he allowed himself to believe that Merry and Pippin had seen three live trolls he picked up a stick as a weapon. Aragorn was not on a war footing when he found the Hobbits.


----------



## Harad (Feb 18, 2002)

> Aragorn was not on a war footing when he found the Hobbits.



Aragorn was surely on a War footing for more than 60 years, or all the years of his manhood. Remember his speech to Boromir in the CoE, where he says that Gondor gets more credit for defending against the threat in the South, but were it not for the Rangers in the North, there would be no peace there either. Something to the effect that "there is a fat innkeeper in Bree, that if he knew what dangers lived within one days march of him, his blood would freeze." Aragorn's father and father before were killed in the Cold War in the North. Please dont tell me that Aragorn walked thru the Northern wild relying on a tree branch for protection.


----------



## Goro Shimura (Feb 18, 2002)

"If I wanted the ring... I could have it... NOW!"

Just want to say that one of my favorite scenes is when Aragorn draws his broken sword at Bree....

"Not much use, is it, Master Gamgee?"


Why didn't Strider have weapons and armour at Bree? Why didn't he have any friends with him? Why didn't he have a horse?

He undergoes quite a transformation.... From rogue... to ranger... to king.... Does it make sense?


The only thing that I can think of was that Gandalf's disappearance disrupted the communication lines so badly that the good guys just weren't ready for all the trouble. Combine that with Striders need to be able to travel quickly and discreetly... and you still don't seem have a super strong case.

But really... would swords and armor matter in a contest against the Black Riders? I don't think so. Speed and stealth and the ability to find Rivendell QUICKLY and along the most advantageous route-- these were most important things for the company at this point.


----------



## Aldanil (Feb 18, 2002)

Returning briefly to Strider97's previous posting:

When Aragorn takes up "a stick as a weapon" to confront with Pippin and Merry those three fearsome "live" trolls, it's only because he knows perfectly well (as Bilbo's old Hall of Fire friend & auditor/collaborator the Dunadan) precisely which turned-to-stone ogres he's going to face.


----------



## Harad (Feb 18, 2002)

Aragorn was never a rogue, except in the eyes of the unaware. He was Chieftain of the Dunedain for 67 years by the time he met the Hobbits in Bree. He had been a protector of the North and knight-errant in Rohan and Gondor during those 67 years, battling trolls, orcs, and other fell beasts. 

So youre right. He didnt need a weapon. There would always be a handy tree branch. When Gandalf told Aragorn to help the hobbits because the 9 were abroad, Aragorn no doubt thought that he could negotiate with the Nazgul, and that it would never come to fisticuffs.


----------



## Eonwe (Feb 18, 2002)

I found nothing in LoTR. Was expecting something in the Muster of Rohan or something like that, like when he says to Hama that whomever touches his sword gets death. Also looked at Robert Foster Guide to Middle Earth, it said that he carried Narsil occasionally (duh).

I will check UT from here.


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 18, 2002)

Well, it is literature. If Robert Foster said he carried Narsil occasionally, I am sure it was to make sure people like Boromir didn't pick it up and cut themselves with it when there was a movie being made... sorry about that... Movie comments and sarcasm on the book thread... aren't I terrible? 

It might've been something about him having to carry it, as an heir. If the blade was lost, Aragorn was lost (Having lost his great heirloom and maybe some sort of claim to his inheiritance) if Aragorn was lost what was the point of the sword? There was no other heir. Aragorn and his sword were one... Now everyone sit cross legged and chant. We will all become one with our swords... 

It is fairly ridiculous, but I think it might be worth considering. He had an emotional attachment to the broken old thing.

It is never said that he carried another blade, but we must assume he did periodically.

The sword wouldn't have been much use against Dark Riders, nor were the flaming brands really. Stealth was his best chance. He couldn't dare cause the attention using a sword (Something that was probably not often seen in that country) would draw in Bree. It was just a intimidation tool, I believe. Something to show while in the hilt if someone was bothering him. 

He probably had something else on hand. The knife or bow theory is handy though Tolkien left that to our imagination. 

He wasn't planning to use the branch on trolls... That is a silly argument. 

You know, in the origenal draft, Strider was a hobbit named trotter. 

I don't think he was expecting to do fighting in Bree. He probably expected the hobbits a couple of months before while it was still safe (Gandalf's letter? Remember. He didn't know abou t it, but Gandalf had probably told him that he expected the hobbits "soon".). Perhaps by the time he realized they weren't coming soon, he didn't dare leave the area for fear of missing them and so was unable to get a new weapon. Perhaps he didn't dare make contact with his Rangers, knowing stealth was his best weapon. Perhaps perhaps perhaps...

I think Aragorn was trapped in a uncomfortable corner while in Bree. Powerless and waiting for a group of hobbits who didn't know how to get some where on time.


----------



## Ged (Feb 18, 2002)

My feeling is that Aragorn carried the main Shard of Narsil in honour of his past. This is connected with his noble realisation of the part he is about to play in the events that happen. He probably (almost certainly) has another sword. But the shard, being questionably but a foot or so long, he can carry also.

This is not to say that all the heirs of Isildur (before Aragorn) also carried the shard. I think Strider carried it because wisely he knew the portents of the times he lived in. 

He knew already in the Inn at Bree the poem that Gandalf had left for Frodo:

"Seek for the sword that is broken!"


----------



## Harad (Feb 18, 2002)

Even Highway Patrolmen in these civilized times range the concrete pathways with weapons, even if they dont plan on meeting Trolls everyday. Every day of Aragorn's existence was patrolling the wild, where he WAS the representative of Law, Justice, and the Anorian Way (except for the long weekends at Rivendell where he would nudgenudgewinkwink with his sweetie). 

He didnt go to Bree on a holiday, expecting a business meeting with the representatives of the Hobbit Corporation. Perhaps swords wouldnt work against the Nazgul--but tell me again the heritage of the sword that Merry used to great effect against the same? What if the Nazgul enlisted an Orc or Troll to do their dirty work. Was that out of the question? Might a sword come in handy?


----------



## Snaga (Feb 18, 2002)

We don't have much to base a theory on. Lets look at what we do have.

(1) Aragorn and the rangers have been guarding the borders of the shire of 17 years. Hardly an activity you would typically do unarmed, I'd suggest.
(2) The quote about dangers within a days march of Bree that would freeze the heart of a fat inn-keeper at Bree also suggests something not very nice, requiring the need to fight occasionally. ( I always thought that might be barrow-wights?)
(3) But, apart from his broken sword, which he tells Sam is not much use, he is unarmed. Why?
(4) He doesn't know that the Nazgul are around at the time he arrives in Bree to look for Mr Underhill I think. If he had, he might have been better prepared. If he thinks he is just trying to convince Mr Underhill to accept his help, knowing hobbits as he does, perhaps he think they will less frightened of an unarmed man?
(5) At Weathertop he finds staches of firewood left by the dunedain. Maybe they also have places they can leave weapons? (Fortunately for PJ, there are 4 swords left at the top of Weathertop!)
(6) The dunedain go to Fornost (Deadman's Dike), Gandalf tells Butterbur. Perhaps this is where they leave their weapons? The Grey Company come from the north to Rohan reasonably well kitted out, and well able to use their weapons. If that's where his weapons are, he wouldn't have time to head north to get them.

Just a theory, my only other one being that his full title was 'Stone Cold Strider' and he downed his enemies by bouncing off the ropes at immense speed and forearm smashing them... Perhaps not.


----------



## Harad (Feb 18, 2002)

VoK says:


> 3) But, apart from his broken sword, which he tells Sam is not much use, he is unarmed. Why?
> 4) He doesn't know that the Nazgul are around at the time he arrives in Bree to look for Mr Underhill I think.If he had, he might have been better prepared. If he thinks he is just trying to convince Mr Underhill to accept his help, knowing hobbits as he does, perhaps he think they will less frightened of an unarmed man?



There is something to be said for the idea that, like the Longbranch Saloon in Dodge City, maybe you check your weapons at the door of the Prancing Pony. One question: Does a scabbard cover the whole length of a sword, or is it like a holster that the sword sticks thru. If the latter then everybody would know that Strider's scabbard did not hold a serious weapon. Again, I see no evidence for the two scabbard theory, and to carry another "real" sword would require another scabbard.

Is is correct that Aragorn did not know that the Nine were abroad before Bree? Certainly he knew directly before Bree since he tells Frodo: "I know what hunts you."


----------



## Ged (Feb 18, 2002)

VoG said:
*But, apart from his broken sword, which he tells Sam is not much use, he is unarmed. Why? *

Why do you suppose that Strider was "unarmed" but for the broken sword? Is there a quote to support that? Would he likely be "unarmed"?

Edit later: Re-reading the relevant passage it says (in the passage at Bree) Aragorn drew out "his sword". But does this preclude his having other weapons about his body?


----------



## aragil (Feb 18, 2002)

1) FotR, p.214 '_"He _(Strider)_ is one of the wandering folk--Rangers we call them. ... He disappears for a month, or a year, and then he pops up again. He was in and out pretty often last spring; but I haven't seen him about lately."_'

2) FotR, p.223 '_"But the explanation is simple: I was looking for a Hobbit called Frodo Baggins. I wanted to find him quickly. I had learned that he was carrying out of the Shire, well, a secret that concerned me and my friends."_'

3) FotR, p.231 '_" You may meet a friend of mine on the Road: a Man, lean, dark, tall, by some called Strider. He knows our business and will help you. ... Make sure that it is the real Strider. There are many strange men on the roads. His true name is Aragorn. ... Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king."_'

4) FotR, p.233 '_"I did not know," he answered. "But I am Aragorn, and those verses go with that name." He drew out his word, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt._'

5) FotR, p.234 '_"I came west with him _(Strider with Gandalf)_ in the spring. ... We last met on the first of May: at Sarn Ford down the Brandywine. He told me that his business with you had gone well, and that you would be starting for Rivendell in the last week of September. As I knew he was at your side, I went away on a journey of my own. And that has proved ill; for plainly some news reached him, and I was not at hand to help. ... When I returned, many days ago, I heard the ill news. The tidings had gone far and wide that Gandalf was missing and the horsemen had been seen. It was the Elven-folk of Gildor that told me this; and later they told me that you had left your home; but there was no news of your leaving Buckland. I have been watching the East road anxiously."_'

6) FotR, p.291 '_"Yes, I knew of them. Indeed I spoke of them once to you; for the Black Riders are the Ringwraiths, the Nine Servants of the Lord of the Rings. But I did not know that they had arisen again or I should have fled with you at once. I heard news of them only after I left you in June; but that story must wait. For the moment we have been saved from disaster, by Aragorn."_'

7) FotR, pp.320-321 '_"In the North after the war and the slaughter of the Gladden Fields the Men of Westernesse were diminished, and their city of Annuminas beside Lake Evendim fell into ruin; and the heirs of Valandil removed and dwelt at Fornost on the high North Downs, and that now too is desolate. Men call it Deadmen's Dike, and they fear to tread there."_'

8) FotR, p.324 '_"For the Sword that was Broken is the Sword of Elendil that broke beneath him when he fell. It has been treasured by his heirs when all other heirlooms were lost; for it was spoken of old among us that it whould be made again when the Ring, Isildur's Bane, was found."_'

9) RotK, p.337 '_"And many folk used to dwell away north, a hundred miles or more from here, at the far end of the Greenway: on the North Downs or by Lake Evendim." "Up away by Deadmen's Dike?" said Butterbur, looking even more dubious. "That's haunted land, they say. None but a robber would go there." "The Rangers go there," said Gandalf. "Deadmen's Dike, you say. So it has been called for long years; but its right name, Barliman, is Fornost Erain, Norbury of the Kings."_'

10) RotK, p.401 '_Arahael his son _(Aranarth, 1st Ranger of the Dunedain's son)_ was fostered in Rivendell, and so were all the sons of the chieftains after him; and there also were kept the heirlooms of their house: the ring of Barahir, the shards of Narsil, the star of Elendil, and the sceptre of Annuminas_'

11) RotK, pp.420-421 '_But when Estel was only twenty years of age, it chanced that he returned to Rivendell after great deeds in the company of the sons of Elrond. ... That day therefore Elrond called him by his true name, and told him who he was and whose son; and he delivered to him the heirlooms of his house. "Here is the Ring of Barahir," he said, "the token of our kinship from afar; and here also are the shards of Narsil. With these you may yet do great deeds."_'

Well, it appears that as I have been digging around and typing quotes, other members of the board have engaged in their usual habit of posting without waiting for me. How rude.
Anyway, to back up my earlier theory that Aragorn was carrying the sword because he took this to be an occasion of special significance, I have found the above quotes. A lot of this has been brought out already, but I'll be darned if I'm going to delete an entry and renumber!
First off, I don't think that we can get a 'logical' (Haradical) explanation for this. Logically, Aragorn was in a dangerous area, and should have had a weapon for the occasion. 
From #8 above, Aragorn knows that the blade will be reforged when the ring is found. From #5 Aragorn knows that the ring has indeed been found, and it appears that he comes to Bree in September attempting to find it. He also thinks that Gandalf would be there, so he probably does not think that he will need to be kitted out for an adventure. From #5 and #6 we learn that Gandalf never relayed the message about the Nazgul to Aragorn. Aragorn returned to Bree in September expecting a cake-walk, and when Gildor's people informed him of the Wraiths he did not have enough time to go to Rivendell or Fornost. From #2 we know that Aragorn has indeed returned to Bree to look for Frodo, as he knows Frodo will be bearing the ring. From #1 we get corroboration with #5: Aragorn was on the outskirts of the Shire in May, learned that the Ring was discovered and soon would be coming to Rivendell, and then Aragorn leaves on 'business of his own'. From #11 we know that Aragorn fought with the sons of Elrond before he received the shards, and from #10 we know that the heirs of Elendil were in the habit of keeping the sword in Rivendell (in a PJ-esque shrine?- #8 says the treasured it). #3-#4 is suggestive that Aragorn shows the Hobbits the shard as a sort of identification, to get them to trust him. 

So, what is my theory? Aragorn is indeed in the habit of carrying around other weapons. He would hardly be 'treasuring' Narsil by toting it around and possibly damaging it beyond reforging. He certainly used a different weapon with the sons of Elrond, prior to receiving Narsil. I'd assume that since his ancestors were in the habit of leaving the sword in Rivendell, they had another weapon of lesser lineage which Aragorn also used. However, Aragorn meets the Hobbits under special circumstances, and for all we know this could have been the only time that he carried the shards around (the sword was later reforged and so became useful, which explains why he later carried it). Anyway, here's the 'special circumstance': Aragorn hears from Gandalf that his hour has come- the ring has been found, the sword will be reforged, and now is his chance to claim the throne of Gondor (and Arwen). He is assured that Gandalf will be taking care of things, so he leaves the guardianship of the Shire and goes to Rivendell, to retrieve the shards and to meet with Elrond, the sons of Elrond, Arwen, Glorifindel, Bilbo, and whoever else will help him at this time. Perhaps he meditates on the matter, after all he has from May to September. In early September he returns to Bree with the Shards, expecting to meet Gandalf and the Hobbits. He learns the news from Gildor's folk, and realizes he hasn't the time to reach Fornost or Rivendell- he must watch the East Road to help the Hobbits (he now also knows that Gandalf is not with them). Once the Hobbits arrive, he uses the sword as identification- he only shows that it is broken once he knows that they've heard the verse. So that's my theory- not entirely logical, but it is drawn from events in the book. Apologies to HGLStrider and V of K, who seem to be veering towards the same theory, but this theory is mine. It is precious to me.

ps #7 & #9 were to be used to explain that the Rangers did have a home away from Rivendell- Fornost, but that point has already been brought up.


----------



## Harad (Feb 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> 
> First off, I don't think that we can get a 'logical' (Haradical) explanation for this.



Meaning I shouldnt bother poking holes in it? Not likely.



> think that he will need to be kitted out for an adventure.



Even getting to Bree was not a "cakewalk." Why would he suddenly let down his guard?




> Aragorn shows the Hobbits the shard as a sort of identification, to get them to trust him.



Doesnt Aragorn say he was not aware of that identification scheme? But, hey! good luck, here's the sword-that-was-broken. In other words Gandalf knew he would (might?) be carrying it, but did NOT tell Aragorn: carry it so the hobbits can ID you.




> Rivendell, to retrieve the shards and to meet with Elrond, the sons of Elrond, Arwen, Glorifindel, Bilbo, and whoever else will help him at this time.



No sale. Where was the Sword reforged? At Rivendell. No reason to take it from there on a journey.




> , but this theory is mine.



Hail Ann Elk!


----------



## Snaga (Feb 18, 2002)

Aragil, great post. Or as one might say: a late, great post! I agree entirely, and I admire your work rate in getting all the quotes lined up. But it is a sad truth that brilliant intuitive thinking wins over diligent scholarship every time. I got there first, the theory is mine. MINE I TELL YOU!!!! (Suddenly, a mist came before his eyes, and Aragil was no longer there, but a hideous orc creature pawing at him!!! NO! Get away from my theory!)


Ged: who's VoG? Is that Vincent of Gondor around again?

I think he was unarmed because there is no mention of a weapon being carried, and you'd expect it to be noted if he had one. I'm not ruling out a knife or somesuch that could be used as a weapon, but I doubt he had a large battle axe slung over his shoulder and JRRT forget to tell us!


----------



## Ged (Feb 18, 2002)

VoK;
VoG was typo. Sorry.

I refer back to my earlier post. The heirs of Isildur did not routinely carry the Shard of Narsil, but Aragorn did. This was because he had a noble inkling (even a tolkienesque inkling) that he was going to become "The King".

But none of this precludes the fact that he might have had another sword on his person.

On the other hand it seems to have been suggested that maybe Aragorn didn't even carry the shards of Narsil - this I cannot understand.


----------



## Eonwe (Feb 18, 2002)

The only thing I can find in UT is:

"The river was swirling dark and swift without halt and by day (sic). Then in haste he cast off all his armour and weapons, save a short sword at his belt,"

But alas, we are talking about Isildur, just before he jumped into Anduin with the Ring.  Of course, he carried Narsil before this, "'Ohtar,' he said, 'I give this now into your keeping'; and he delivered to him the great sheath and the shards of Narsil, Elendil's sword."


----------



## Harad (Feb 18, 2002)

> On the other hand Harad seems to be arguing that he didn't even carry the shards of Narsil - this I cannot understand.



I throw myself on the mercy of the court. Did I ever say this? 

(Mercy in THIS court?)


----------



## Ged (Feb 18, 2002)

Harad,
I apologise, a very quick (but not quick enough!) edit has made your repost meaningless. You didn't suggest such a thing.


----------



## Eonwe (Feb 18, 2002)

I don't go for the identification thing, nor the "its a better story" routine. I think he carried the 1 foot shard of Narsil as a weapon (full circle)...


----------



## Eonwe (Feb 18, 2002)

I could swear I remember a writeup of Aragorn leaving his fellow soldiers of Gondor, and him disappearing as Thorongil. Perhaps that writeup contains some info, but I can't find it.


----------



## aragil (Feb 18, 2002)

V of K- ha-ha, beat you to it. You see, my lengthy post above was just refining my argument from http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=53874#post53874.
So you see, the precious is mine. Precious, precious, precious! My precious! O my precious! _Precioooooouus!_


----------



## aragil (Feb 18, 2002)

Eonwe- I think that quotes 8 & 10 from my post are pretty well against Aragorn using the shards as a weapon. The chieftains treasured it and kept it in Rivendell. If they had used it as a weapon they would have increased the chance of damaging it further or of being slain (like Arathorn and Arador) and having the enemy get the weapon. Aragorn himself gives the best indication that he doesn't use it as a weapon-
FotR, p. 233 '_"Not much use, is it Sam?"_
This seems to indicate that the shards are not much use as a weapon. Why carry it at all in this instance?
FotR, p. 233 '_"But the time is near when it shall be forged anew."_
Which has been my argument.

As for the identification thing- I'm not sure that anybody is going for it. I mentioned it on the first page of this thread, but that is not what my statement in my above post implied. What I was saying is that Aragorn only shows the Hobbits that his sword is broken once he knows that the Hobbits are familiar with the verse. Once he knows that the Hobbits know the verse, he supports his claim that he is the real Strider by showing them the broken sword. He does not show them that the sword is broken when he reveals that he is armed. I do not think that Aragorn brought Narsil to Bree as a form of ID, but I do think that he showed the Hobbits (and us) that his sword was broken so that the Hobbits would know he was the real Strider.


----------



## Eonwe (Feb 18, 2002)

well I agree its "not much use", however why would Elrond give it to Aragorn at age 20, and not the other chieftains? Why would Isildur carry it as in the quote I gave above? It must have been worth some protection if it could cut the finger of Sauron off...

My only theory is the hidden "short sword" that Isildur had in his belt... but I can't find any other passage that shows Aragorn with this. I imagine him taking a sword out of the armory of Rohan, or from Gondor when he was there as Thorongil.

I agree that the sword that was broken could be linked to the poem about Aragorn, however the hobbits are convinced simply by him announcing himself as Strider and that Gandalf tells them to seek out Strider in his letter he leaves with Butterbur. I think perhaps the sword helps id him, but it wasn't what originally convinced them?

I agree with you that (and I hope I get what you are saying correctly) he was carrying Narsil anticipating going back to Rivendell with the Ring, that it was time for it to be forged again. However, if you are going to pick a weapon that is effective against the servants of Sauron, why not pick Narsil, shard that it is?


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 18, 2002)

Aragil, the only problem I have with you "taking back your theory" which I was likewise leaning towards is that once again I have been called HGLStrider, when my name is HLGStrider... Typo, I know, but it's getting a tad bit pandemic.
Okay, here's my comment.

I think there is a bit more to the identification story, if he was assuming that Frodo knew about Elendil and Isulder. This might've been unusual info for a hobbit, but we're talking about the bearer!

Before Butterbur entered the room, Aragorn was about to tell "his story". What was this? That he was a friend of Gandalf, or was he going to spill all the beans, say he was Isulder's heir, and show the sword just to clinch things? 

It is very worth considering. 

Also, I still think he was back into a corner. I have always found backed into a corner with barely anyway out but still determined heroes terribly romantic, and no one is going to take that away from my reading...


----------



## Eonwe (Feb 18, 2002)

FYI the sword shown to the hobbits is the very last proof. He already has said his name is Strider, he says he is Aragorn son of Arathorn, and says the verse all that is gold does not glitter. All three of these things are in the letter that Gandalf sends. He tells them that the time will come soon when the blade will be forged anew, as the last piece of proof.


----------



## Harad (Feb 18, 2002)

> well I agree its "not much use", however why would Elrond give it to Aragorn at age 20



Aragorn was in an unusual position compared with his forefathers in that his father was killed when he was 2 and he was raised by Elrond. Therefore getting it at age 20, was just part of his heritage being revealed, but unlikely to be for use as a weapon.

1. how many scabbards, how many swords per scabbard? In the absence of another weapon of not--axe, spear, etc. the weapon of choice for a fighting man has to be a sword

2. why take Narsil from Rivendell to get it reforged, when it was going to be reforged at Rivendell.

3. I think enuf time has gone by to say that if Aragorn had another weapon, and he probably did, it is never mentioned, except perhaps the hunting bow.


----------



## daisy (Feb 18, 2002)

*But you said he had a french tickler!!*

I still assume a dagger played a part somewhere - a scabbard can be many things but I assume it was a thin covering made out of leather where the sword would be placed - if the sword is sharp it would not make sense to have it dangling around your thigh!!

Ashaman would know about scabbards, or Cirayher.


----------



## Harad (Feb 18, 2002)

Absolutely needs a scabbard, even for a FT. But if Narsil is in it, there is no room for a full sword. So he needs a second scabbard.

Also no one answered why Merry's sword was effective against the Witch Lord, but Narsil would not be--both swords of Numenor with Narsil being a bit more so.


----------



## Eonwe (Feb 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Harad _
> *
> 
> Aragorn was in an unusual position compared with his forefathers in that his father was killed when he was 2 and he was raised by Elrond. Therefore getting it at age 20, was just part of his heritage being revealed, but unlikely to be for use as a weapon.
> *


IYO? unlikely ok, fine, but no evidence of any other weapon.



> *
> 1. how many scabbards, how many swords per scabbard? In the absence of another weapon of not--axe, spear, etc. the weapon of choice for a fighting man has to be a sword
> *



Well, as I have shown above, Isildur had a "short sword" in his "belt" along with a "sheath" with Narsil, the sheath he gave to Ohtar.



> *
> 2. why take Narsil from Rivendell to get it reforged, when it was going to be reforged at Rivendell.
> *


only to use it as a weapon  Did he come from Rivendell and then back to Rivendell? don't think so.



> *
> 3. I think enuf time has gone by to say that if Aragorn had another weapon, and he probably did, it is never mentioned, except perhaps the hunting bow. *


xactly...


----------



## Harad (Feb 18, 2002)

> Well, as I have shown above, Isildur had a "short sword" in his "belt" along with a "sheath" with Narsil, the sheath he gave to Ohtar.



This is a good plausibility argument for another weapon. However, neither a short sword nor a dagger is a serious weapon for a Major League Warrior. Like giving Barry Bonds a 20 oz bat.


----------



## Eonwe (Feb 18, 2002)

its the only sad quote I got 

20oz bat for Bonds -- bet Hank Aaron could do better with Narsil.


----------



## daisy (Feb 18, 2002)

Who said Narsil couldn't kick some Nazgul butt? I think the point is the odds:
Merry vs. Nazgul Lord

Aragorn vs. Nazgul Lorde plus eight other creepos.

Only has one Narsil, two hands, you know?
And they have those nasty witch blades.

Sometimes warriors wore a sword strapped over their shoulder in a sort-of shoulder/back scabbard a la Conan.This would allow for a second scabbard without doing a double thigh deal - hard to sit down ...also doesn't help with the left hand /right hand thing...Aragorn was a lefty or we don't know?? Could he have necessarily fight equally well with both hands??

He's also very good at using found objects and enemies weapons against them - like bask an orc with a shield and take his sword... are orcs male?


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 18, 2002)

One would assume they were...

I still think there was a bit of an emotional attachment to the thing and he did hope to use it as identification and wasn't planning to fight. Perhaps it was a last, youthful bit of idocy, when hope sprang anew in his heart that he was about to win. Might as well grab that old sword.


----------



## Grond (Feb 18, 2002)

Just a mild interjection of fact. Narsil was forged by Telchar the Dwarf in the First Age and since the Witch-king wasn't alive then, it is doubtful any spells were laid upon it that would directly affect him. Merry's blade, on the other hand, was forged when the Witch-king was the main foe of Arnor and, according to the book, spells were laid on it that were specific to the Witch-king.

I haven't looked up the quotes but will if anyone wishes. They are there.


----------



## Harad (Feb 18, 2002)

Facts are an unwelcome interjection, but that one I will accept. Merry's knife may have been more effective against the Witch King than Narsil.
(Still Narsil did great harm to the Witch King's boss remember.) If Narsil is less useful, even more reason to have another weapon.

Aragorn could have have had any number of weapons in any number of places--his back, his boots, his sleeves--they just arent mentioned by JRRT. 

Aragorn wouldnt have taken a trip across the dangerous North with a useless weapon for "sentimental" reasons. And 87 year old Aragorn's "youthful bit of idiocy"? C'mon!


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Feb 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Harad _
> *Facts are an unwelcome interjection, but that one I will accept. Merry's knife may have been more effective against the Witch King than Narsil.
> (Still Narsil did great harm to the Witch King's boss remember.) If Narsil is less useful, even more reason to have another weapon.
> 
> ...




Yes he could have had it anywhere and tolkien didn't say if he did or didn't so who knows but commensense say's yes.


----------



## Snaga (Feb 19, 2002)

It sounds sensible that he should be armed, but if so it must have been a concealed weapon. It beggars belief that he would openly carry a weapon and JRRT not describe it. Think of the context: Sam's deep suspicion until the meeting with Glorfindel - he wouldn't have like it.

But equally, I don't see Bree-land as a particularly hostile territory. Indeed, I'd suggest that from Barlimans reaction to the heavily armed hobbits returning home you can infer that people _rarely_ wandered around with significant amounts of weaponry. What about the road east to Rivendell? They meet no danger apart from the 9, so perhaps suggesting that Aragorn expects to do the trip unarmed initially is no so unreasonable.


----------



## Harad (Feb 19, 2002)

And where would he keep his arms while traveling unarmed? Back in Rivendell? On Weathertop? Conveniently in a barrow?


----------



## Snaga (Feb 19, 2002)

At Fornost or Rivendell makes some sense. Who knows? I'm sure that JRRT could write something in as required. Maybe Auntie Pacer lived at Archet?


----------



## Harad (Feb 19, 2002)

I dont think you will find an adventure, fantasy, dungeons and dragons, etc. story, where a main fighting character, puts down his arms in the middle because he feels some multi-day journey is "safe." Even if there werent "fell beasts" within one-days march of Bree, there are still dangerous wild (not evil) animals. Why would Aragorn limit himself to a one-foot hilt shard for protection? He is traveling alone in a semi-wilderness. There are no call boxes.

For whatever reason (not for ID purposes) he has filled his one and only scabbard with the hilt-shard. I hope he has his bow with him, and I hope he doesnt have to engage in close-in combat with a determined foe or foes.


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 19, 2002)

Perhaps Tolkien didn't write it in, but I'm sure if he were alive, he would not rewrite the book to include another weapon or take out Narsil. He would write a story, essay, or explanation explaining the move. He wasn't the type of person to see this so much as a problem as an opportunity... At least not from the Carpenter Biography... 

Let's all assume he carried a weapon of some sort. A knife.. or maybe he was good at quarter staffing and excepted the tree branch as a good subsitute.

He seemed to like using the brands against the riders... and gee did it look good on film with all those bright swirling... off subject I know... I know...


----------



## Harad (Feb 19, 2002)

Here's a "lifted" opinion on this subject from somebody who might elicit applause and hisses:

http://www.thescriptanalyst.com/



> "The Aragorn-King thing is something that we definitely have manipulated and pushed and shoved in a different way to the books,” Jackson admits. “A few people have mentioned they’re disappointed that in Brie [my guess is the interviewer stuck in the 'cheese' and not the town--Harad] you don’t see Strider pull out the broken sword. I deliberately didn’t go there, ecause I couldn’t imagine that happening without getting a laugh from people that have never read the books. You’ve got your hero. You’ve got Viggo [Mortensen] with his big [scabbard], and he pulls out a sword—and it’s broke off! It’s very difficult to shut your eyes and actually imagine that happening in a way that the uninitiated won’t say, ‘What the hell’s that?’ So we were just a little scared about that, to be completely honest.


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 19, 2002)

Harad, totally personal, but... don't you sleep??? You are the quickest replier I could think of... Of course, I'm a tad bit amateur at this...


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 19, 2002)

More seriously... and by the way, when I look back at that, that looked mean, Harad, but it was meant more as a compliment for speedy response... No derogotory intent... 

Anyway, your comment about no call boxes could also go with my theory (Or whoever owns it... intellectual property... someone ought to copywrite...) that Aragorn was stuck with no way to contact his rangers and get a weapon... 

As for my "youthful idocy" comment... No comment that I misspelt idocy... I hate looking things up... don't you think finding himself so much closer to his goal would make him feel like he was 60 again and cause him to rush off and do something a bit impulsive and daring??? I don't know. I was sort of kidding...


----------



## Grond (Feb 19, 2002)

I am totally with Harad on this one. I cannot rationalize the heir to both the throne of Gondor and Arnor wandering around the wilderness without a viable weapon. Call me old fashioned but I want my hero to be armed for war. I had never thought about the situation, mainly because hand to hand combat didn't really come up until after Narsil was reforged. Oh well. We can't have everything perfect all the time.

No..... I wonder why Gandalf took the Fellowship through Moria when the Gap of Rohan would have been so much better of a choice.


----------



## Harad (Feb 20, 2002)

Well...I dont know...I guess we can be on the same side. It looks foul but it seems fair.


----------



## aragil (Feb 20, 2002)

I have found a Fantasy novel in which one of the main characters goes unarmed for a while -The Lord of the Rings with Aragorn. He does get into close combat with some of the most dangerous creatures of his world (the Nazgul), and he comes out OK. The road from Rivendell to Bree (the road I think he traveled) would have been a Cake-Walk for Aragorn. Does anybody here really think it would have been possible for the enemy to ambush him while he was alone? Aside from Arwen, nobody in Middle Earth posessed the craft to sneak-up on our Ranger Chieftain (at least none of the bad creatures had that sort of craft). From what I read in the books, Aragorn fully expected to accompany Gandalf back to Rivendell. Gandalf was one of the most powerful beings in Middle-Earth, so coming back along the road also would have been relatively easy, especially if everybody was mounted. And let's not forget, when Aragorn left Rivendell the world was a much merrier place. There was no rumor of the Nazgul, and Saruman was still considered an ally. When Aragorn reached Bree and heard the bad news from Gildor, I'm sure he wished that he had brought a real sword. In this sense, it seems that HLGStrider is right, Aragorn made a bad, illogical, shortsighted decision. In hindsight, Gandalf's decision to visit Saruman when he already had misgivings about the White Wizard was also poor, so I guess we'll just have to live with the fact that the Good Professor gave us fallible characters.


----------



## Harad (Feb 20, 2002)

In the most respectful way, no insult intended, since I consider you to be one of the finest minds on this board--a U vs U-H stalwart--perhaps led down the primrose path by the Ugluk "incident"--but still terrifcally talented and a model for young posters. So just to reiterate that this is not an insult of any kind:

I completely disagree. Read Aragorns own words below about this "peaceful" countryside. I, and perhaps the other paragon of posters, Grond, certainly would interpret the following quite differently. Aragorn would NEVER travel unarmed with this undertanding. He would never ASSUME that Gandalf would take care of him. 



> - If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, we have played another part. Many evil things there are that your strong walls and bright swords do not stay. You know little of the lands beyond your bounds. Peace and freedom, do you say? The North would have known them little but for us.
> Fear would have destroyed them. But when dark things come from the houseless hills, or creep from sunless woods, they fly from us. What roads
> would any dare to tread, what safety would there be in quiet lands, or in the homes of simple men at night, if the Dúnedain were asleep, or were all
> gone into the grave? - And yet less thanks have we than you. Travellers scowl at us, and countrymen give us scornful names. "Strider" I am to one fat man who lives within a day's march of foes that would freeze his heart or lay his little town in ruin, if he were not guarded ceaselessly. Yet we would not have it otherwise. If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so. That has been the task of my kindred, while the years have lengthened and the grass has grown.


----------



## aragil (Feb 20, 2002)

Well, I think that the heart of where we disagree is where you say that 'Aragorn *would* NEVER travel unarmed with this understanding.' I think that I'd phrase it 'Aragorn *should* NEVER travel unarmed with this understanding.'
It does not seem to be in Aragorn's character to do such a thing, yet apparently Tolkien had him do it. Aragorn never draws a weapon in anticipation of an attack, and when he is forced to fight he does so with two fire-brands. From all the information in the books Aragorn went to Bree to meet Gandalf, and he did so unarmed, having conceded to Sam that the hilt-shard of Narsil was 'not much use' (though doubtlessly a choice weapon for removing Rings from Dark Lords, weakened or comatose). I completely agree that Aragorn should not have been unarmed, but from all information in the books, he was. So I am trying to rationalize within the books why this would be the case, when he clearly uses weapons to defend the Shire. What I see is that immediately after learning from Gandalf that the Great Ring has been found, and that it will be leaving the Shire in September, Aragorn goes away on 'business of his own'. I assume this means that he's getting things in order for his claim to the throne of Gondor, and one of the things he's doing might be to get Narsil. Perhaps he goes back to Rivendell and expects them to re-forge it on the spot, but the Elven-smithies are booked through December. Who knows. But if Aragorn desired to move from Rivendell to Bree without confrontation, then he had the wood-skill to do it. He would then be able to safely travel unarmed. Of course, this would mean that he would be giving up his duty as protector of Bree and the Shire (bad reason #1), and he would be forced to use branches if he ran into enemies like the Black Riders (bad reason #2). Despite both of the reasons not to go unarmed, Aragorn made a bad choice and went to Bree unarmed. I'm not trying to say he made a good choice in doing this, I'm trying to see if the text gives us any reason for him to do this. My explanation is the only reason I (and apparently V of K and HLGStrider) can think of to rationalize his decision, and I agree with you, it's not a very good reason, given that he later get's cought without a weapon.


----------



## Harad (Feb 20, 2002)

I understand your flailing about for a rationale. I think it was The Craw in "Get Smart" who said "Every Cookie, Not Necessary Have Fortune."

To further aid to the cornfusion, when Aragorn is told that Narsil can not be "reforged-while-he-waits," rather than leave it in Rivendell for future pick-up, he takes out whatever sword he had been using (assuming he hadnt had Narsil in his scabbard for the past 67 years) and puts in Narsil saying, "I am as giddy as a school boy. Its true I have been kicking Evil butt for 67 years between Rivendell and Bree, but not only do I feel unaccountably lucky today, but also I would like to have my new bestest friend, Narsil, with me while I go meet a couple of strange hobbits who are carrying the most important and dangerous artifact in Middle Earth. Whoopee, here I goes."

Here's my "rationale." JRRT saw in his literary minds eye, the scene of Strider in Bree amazing the hobbits with his hilt-shard, fulfilling the words in the poem. Despite PJ thoughts about the movie (and he is probably right), the scene works in the book. Thats as long as we dont dig too deep and ask what unmentioned weapon he really is using. However based upon his subsequent actions along the trail to Rivendell, it doesnt appear as if he has an unmentioned weapon.

Therefore we are just left with:

1. flailing rationales.
2. an itty bitty logical hole.

Neither 1 nor 2 are satisfactory.


----------



## Snaga (Feb 20, 2002)

Or equally unsatisfactory no.3

He had a weapon which unaccountably JRRT failed to mention, and which he failed to use if there happened to be a large stick around.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Feb 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Variag of Khand _
> *Or equally unsatisfactory no.3
> 
> He had a weapon which unaccountably JRRT failed to mention, and which he failed to use if there happened to be a large stick around. *


\



Yes but against the ulairi swords or bows would have been useless. Look what happened 2 frodo's knife? Fire was the best optoin and the thing most likely 2 scare them.


----------



## aragil (Feb 20, 2002)

If Aragorn had another weapon, why would he intimidate the Hobbits with a sword which later proved to be broken? Why not intimidate them with a useful weapon, which you could swing in the air? Narsil itself had been hidden up to that point. How many hidden weapons was Aragorn in the habit of carrying?

As for Aragorn necessarily having a bow for hunting, is everybody here from the city? The only thing that Aragorn would be likely to kill with a bow is something large like a deer. This would be far too large for the four hobbits and the pony to carry, so most of the meat would be left to rot- doesn't sound much like Aragorn's MO. He probably was referring to his ability to trap something like a rabbit- much as our good friend Smeagol later does for the Hobbits in Ithilien.


----------



## Beleg Strongbow (Feb 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by aragil _
> *If Aragorn had another weapon, why would he intimidate the Hobbits with a sword which later proved to be broken? Why not intimidate them with a useful weapon, which you could swing in the air? Narsil itself had been hidden up to that point. How many hidden weapons was Aragorn in the habit of carrying?
> 
> As for Aragorn necessarily having a bow for hunting, is everybody here from the city? The only thing that Aragorn would be likely to kill with a bow is something large like a deer. This would be far too large for the four hobbits and the pony to carry, so most of the meat would be left to rot- doesn't sound much like Aragorn's MO. He probably was referring to his ability to trap something like a rabbit- much as our good friend Smeagol later does for the Hobbits in Ithilien. *





Firstly aragorn didn't use his broken sword for intimidation rather as to prove a point "all that is gold does not glitter..........". He probably didn't only use his sword for hunting but for other means also.


----------



## Harad (Feb 20, 2002)

Aragorn does the "intimidation" bit a moment before revealing his hilt-shard:



> How do we know you are the Strider that Gandalf speaks about? - he demanded. - You never mentioned Gandalf, till this letter came out. You might be a play-acting spy, for all I can see, trying to
> get us to go with you. You might have done in the real Strider and took his clothes. What have you to say to that?
> 'that you are a stout fellow, - answered Strider; - but I am afraid my only answer to you, Sam Gamgee, is this. If I had killed the real Strider, I could kill you. And I should have killed you already without so much talk. If I was after the Ring, I could have it - NOW!
> He stood up, and seemed suddenly to grow taller. In his eyes gleamed a light, keen and commanding. Throwing back his cloak, he laid his hand on the hilt of a sword that had hung concealed by his side. They did not dare to move. Sam sat wide-mouthed staring at him dumbly.
> - But I am the real Strider, fortunately, - he said, looking down at them with his face softened by a sudden smile. - I am Aragorn son of Arathorn; and if by life or death I can save you, I will.



Later he pulls the hilt-shard out to "explain" the passage in Gandalf' letter.



> - Did the verses apply to you then? - asked Frodo. - I could not make out what they were about. But how did you know that they were in Gandalf's letter, if you have never seen it?
> - I did not know, - he answered. - But I am Aragorn, and those verses go with that name. - He drew out his sword, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt. - Not much use is it, Sam? - said Strider. - But the time is near when it shall be forged anew.



How about this? He used Narsil as his "weapon" because, being a foot-long, it was easily concealed? Not much good in a fight, but just great for hiding under a cloak.


----------



## Grond (Feb 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Beleg Strongbow _
> *Firstly aragorn didn't use his broken sword for intimidation rather as to prove a point "all that is gold does not glitter..........". He probably didn't only use his sword for hunting but for other means also. *


Harad already beat me to the response to the intimidation part of your quote. Pray tell how one hunts with a sword chopped off 1 foot from the hilt? And, again, for what exactly does one use a chopped off sword? Either Aragorn had another weapon that J. R. R. T. failed to tell us about and which Aragorn forgot about using or we have a uncrowned king walking around dangerous wilderness basically unarmed. 

It is an inconsistency I can live with, because like Harad said, it works. But I wish a better explanation had been provided by the author.


----------



## Dhôn-Buri-Dhôn (Feb 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Harad _
> *Aragorn does the "intimidation" bit a moment before revealing his hilt-shard:
> 
> 
> ...




I think you're being sarcastic, but I can't tell for sure from your tone of typing. Nevertheles...

No sale. In addition to the foot of blade, there would be another foot or more of hilt, plus maybe 2 to 3 more feet of empty scabbard (or not-empty, if he carted around the other piece of Narsil too. It was just two pieces in the book; the movie turned it into a whole slew of fragments).

I suppose he might have had a special "shard scabbard" made just for the hilt shard... but that would look awfully stupid.


Okay, so, I think most people in this thread agree that Aragorn would have carried other weapons at various times. But what weapons? We know he hunts, and unless he's got a 12-gauge someplace, that probably means a bow. We have no explicit mentions of any other weapons, though. What do you think a Ranger and Royalty-In-Exile would use? Bolo? Boomerang? Blow-gun? Broken Bottle? Bar of soap carved to look like a derringer?


----------



## Eonwe (Feb 20, 2002)

a short sword in his belt like Isildur. a guess only


----------



## Harad (Feb 20, 2002)

Somebody who prefers to remain anonymous pointed out to me that Warriors, samurai, and the like do on occasion carry 2 swords in 2 scabbards, since swords sometimes break in combat.

However why would Aragorn conceal the Narsil-Shard in Bree, if he had another full length sword as well? I have heard of "concealed weapons" but a 4 foot (1.22 m) long sword?

As important as Aragorn was, his "backup" blade should have been notable...maybe not 1000s (?) of years of heritage like Narsil, but still not off-the-shelf of the Bill Butterbar's Bree Blacksmith.

-s


----------



## aragil (Feb 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *And, again, for what exactly does one use a chopped off sword? *



I think that we already know- the hilt shard is perfect for slicing off the ring finger of any Dark Lord you might come across in Eriador. It was sort of the Swiss Army Knife of it's day.

I'm still fairly convinced that Aragorn was in the habit of carrying around another sword before the trip to Bree (but not during said trip). Since he didn't need to re-train with Anduril, he was probably used to using a similar sword (this would mean that the _eket_ was not his primary weapon). I'm sure that he carried a bow, being a Ranger (the Rangers of Ithilien had longbows, spears and swords). However, if he had been bearing one during the trip from Bree to Rivendell, I tend to think Tolkien would have described him as stalking with it, especially while in the presence of the Nazgul. Remember that Legolas was able to slay the mount of the Nazgul at the Anduin with his bow, and this probably saved the Fellowship. If Aragorn had a bow it would have been prudent for him to at least have it out when the Nazgul were in the area.


----------



## Grond (Feb 20, 2002)

It appears to me that once the Ring was found that Aragorn forsook all weapons save for Narsil. If there were other weapons they would have been both described and used in the conflict with the Nazgul. Of course, that is just IMHO.


----------



## Harad (Feb 20, 2002)

BTW, its wrong to think that no sword would be useful against the Nazgul. Merry's sword was VERY useful...and he happened to be carrying it at Weathertop!

Aragorn, being the heir of the Northern Kingdom should ALSO have had access to weapons that were effective against the Witch King, the Mortal Enemy of the Northern Kingdom. It would be a little odd if the only weapon surviving from that kingdom was the one found in that particular barrow that TB cleaned out.


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 20, 2002)

There is a time in every writing project when the writer is torn between the dramatic and the sensible, I believe. Where he really wants the main male character to fall on his knees and profess his love for the main female character despite that he disapproving father is in the room, or when he wants the hidden secretive spy to reveal himself to the lovely maiden, despite that it will blow his cover and he has no reason to believe that she is on his side other then her beautiful blue eyes... 

or where the great warrior carries a broken sword just because it looks good in that one scene...

I'm not saying there isn't a logical reason we could find if we searched forever, but that just might've been Tolkien's reason... Some things might not make sense, but they sure help plot movement and dramatics. 

(By the way, I have been guilty of this nonsense for the sake of dramatics more often then not in my own work... Blah... Wonder why I never get anything published?)


----------



## Harad (Feb 21, 2002)

One more try:

Maybe Aragorn felt ongoing shame over the role that his ancestor, Isildur, played in Sauron's revival. Therefore he handicapped himself by using a 1-foot hilt-shard to constantly pay a price for the ancient misdeed. This flies in the face somewhat of his apparent admiration for Isildur: "I am Isildur's heir, not Isildur himself." But we are down to the dregs in the theory department.


----------



## Goro Shimura (Feb 21, 2002)

I agree with HLGStrider...

It is a really dramatic scene...

And I agree with Harad...

We just don't have any good theories to support it.


----------



## aragil (Feb 21, 2002)

I believe that I agree with Grond, HLGStrider, Harad, and Goroshimura on this. Could a thread possibly end in agreement? I hope not, or my reputation on _U vs U-h_ shall be forever ruined!


----------



## Snaga (Feb 21, 2002)

Well we can't have that can we? 

I DISAGREE. you are all WRONG WRONG WRONG.

That's better. Now what were we talking about?


----------



## Harad (Feb 21, 2002)

VoK,

I disagree that you disagree. As its 2:54 a.m. in your locality, you must be hallucinating. Therefore when you say you disagree...


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 22, 2002)

Fiddler on the Roof

You know he's right... 
You know he's right too...
(Interupting person) They can't both be right.
You know, You're right too...


----------



## elvenbladesmith (Jun 16, 2005)

*from a rangers view, why carry a broken sword?*

in the book aragorn carries narsil broken in the scabbard during his life as a ranger. a rangers job is to protect the borders, and to relay info on enemy movements, right? hes basically a scout. he knew he would probably see some minor combat, but all he has is a broken sword? sounds very unpractical to me.


----------



## Hammersmith (Jun 16, 2005)

*Re: from a rangers view, why carry a broken sword?*

I think that the sword was primarily a reminder for him. While the movie does go over the top a bit with the weapons handover scene outside Edoras, it would be fair to assume that he _does_ have other weapons (back this up, someone smart?) or would be resourceful enough to find some at short notice. Besides this, a broken sword can be very dangerous in skilled hands, as Sauron found to his peril


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 16, 2005)

*Re: from a rangers view, why carry a broken sword?*

There used to be a REALLY good thread about this. I'll see if I can get a link.

I think it was decided that Aragorn would have other weapons and also that carrying the Shards of Narsil was not a normal thing for him. It was sort of his ID that he took along in case he ran into Frodo on that mission.

Let me grab the thread.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 17, 2005)

*Re: from a rangers view, why carry a broken sword?*

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=2794&highlight=Aragorn%27s+Weapon

As promised.

If you have more questions, I would like to merge this thread with the old Aragorn's Weapon thread as it is a good thread and could use some more discussion.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jun 17, 2005)

*Re: from a rangers view, why carry a broken sword?*



elvenbladesmith said:


> in the book aragorn carries narsil broken in the scabbard during his life as a ranger. a rangers job is to protect the borders, and to relay info on enemy movements, right? hes basically a scout. he knew he would probably see some minor combat, but all he has is a broken sword? sounds very unpractical to me.



Very unpractical indeed from that standpoint. But he is the future King Of Men, constantly aware of it, and so he carries the Shards of Narsil possibly as a profound reminder of who he is now and who he is to become. When the time is ripe, and the prophesy begins coming true, the sword is reforged at the appropriate moment and sees battle once again.

Barley


----------



## Alatar (Jun 17, 2005)

As was said earlir, when he was in Rohan and Gondor...
Man;So, your from the north?
Aragorn: Yup.
Man; Heard of those rangers?
Aragorn; Nup.
Man; Well lets see your sowrd, ummm... why is it broken?
Aragorn;Acident.
Man; So your from the North, have a broken sword, and your not a ranger?
Aragorn; Well i am.
Man; Wow you must be isildurs heir!

It would have ruined his cover. I think that he would use a other sword, a spear, and a bow, likethe rangers in the RotK. He just took that as he wanted proof of his identiny.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 17, 2005)

He probably could have shown up in Rohan and offered his service without much to show for weapons and received a sword. I think he probably was armed by whatever crown he was serving and would have at least one back up weapon on his own. He probably kept whatever weapon he was using when he through down the Corsairs. He walked away from the scene and I don't see him turning in his gear before leaving. So, I imagine he at least kept that. 


I also imagine he went through many swords in his lifetime. 

Hunter gear at the time would have included a knife, to be used more as a tool than a weapon, but if he hunted, which he said he did, he would need one (or else he would be stuck with skinning rabbits with a very sharp rock or somewhat inconvenient sword hilt).


----------



## elvenbladesmith (Jun 18, 2005)

when i posted this question i had a specific battle in my mind, and that is weathertop. i think that jacksons version sounds much more appropriate, and is probably what would have taken place. but like it is stated before, i think tolkein meant it as symbolism.
hammersmith, you said that it would be fair to assume he had other weapons, did you mean that he had them at weathertop? cause he sure didnt show the wraiths that he did.
i just find it rediculous that he carried only a broken sword into the wilds, to escort the ring of power to rivendel, when he knew wraiths were on the lose! most likely he did carry other weapons during his years as a ranger, but on his most difficult task, to date, he decided to get all ceramonial? hardly sounds like a wood wise ranger to me!
practical ranger gear for aragorn would be a short bow, a bastard sword, a hunting knife, light leather armour, or a chain mail vest, cloak, high boots, pack, with a bedroll. sound familiar? pj aragron!


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 18, 2005)

Not Tolkien Aragorn, however. It is clearly stated he carried only Anduril and he doesn't get into armor until he reaches Theoden and is armed for Helm's Deep. 

I think it would be very impractical for Aragorn to be openly armed in Bree. He is already distrusted. Any show of potential force, and he would be run out of the town on a rail. He cannot afford to maintain his presence by force. He cannot afford to be known openly as anything more than a "Ranger," which is not a position held in much esteme. It's sort of like a dark version of Robin Hood. Rangers aren't soldiers in the "armed forces" sense. They are soldiers in the "secret mission" sense. It would be like Zorro wearing his little rapier off duty. Like Bruce Wayne driving the Batmobile. Like Clark Kent gut slamming a rival reporter. I could go on.

Aragorn does not even carry Narsil's shards openly. If you read the chapter _Strider, _he only pulls back his cloak to reveal the sheeth when Sam "threatens" him. 

The Rangers protect the Shire secretly.

I also am curious as to whether you think even Anduril reforged would have had any effect whatsoever on Mr. Witchking? All blades that pierce him perish, for one thing. For another, only certain blades have any power whatsoever over his "knit sinews." For a third, no mortal man can kill him. 

All that put together makes fire a much more effective tool against them. 

Also, had Aragorn really had to fight off the five Wraith's on Weathertop, he would have died. Only their own over confidence that the knife wound had finished the job caused their early departure and saved the group's lives.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 18, 2005)

_If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, we have played another part. Many evil things there are that your strong walls and bright swords do not stay. You know little of lands beyond your bounds. Peace and freedom do you say? The North would have known them little but for us. Fear would have destroyed them. But when dark things come from the houseless hills, or creep from sunless woods, they fly from us. What roads would any dare to tread, what safety would there be in quiet lands, or in the homes of simple men at night, if the Dunedain were asleep, or were all gone into the grave?
'And yet less thanks have we than you. Travellers scowl at us, and countrymen give us scornful names. "Strider" I am to one fat man who lives within a day's march of foes that would freeze his heart, or lay his little town to ruin, if he were not guarded ceaselessly. Yet we would not have it otherwise. If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so. That has been the task of my kindred, while the years have lengthened and the gras has grown.'_


I just posted this in another thread, but I thought I'd post it here too because it has much to do with the true nature of Rangering. Do you really think Barliman would have had the guts to call someone armed the way the Aragorn you describe is, "Strider." Wouldn't it have been obvious that the Rangers were some elite, paramilitary force if they went around like that? 

Now, errantry in Rohan and Gondor is another story. Also the actual battles they have AWAY from civilization would be another story. That's why I think Aragorn probably had another weapon on him, but very well hidden. 

We know that he did have a horse of his own that he chose not to ride for whatever reason until it was brought to him by the gray company. It is logical to assume that he had his own war gear that was likewise left behind when he was in Bree. 

I imagine he would often travel between Bree, Rivendell, and the hidden Ranger settlements, perhaps making the circuit several times a year along with other journies, further east or south as situation demanded or Gandalf requested. He probably had a different "guise" for each journey and would prepare accordingly. I doubt he had much time for prancing about Rivendell with his sweety, but I do imagine that when there he acted much more the noble-gentleman. With the other Rangers he was the battle hardened captain. On his own the savy guide and hunter. In Bree he was the mysterious stranger, not trusted, but not threatening enough that he wouldn't be allowed to sit in the common room and listen to the news, such as would interest him.

Now, I do find it slightly illogical that he would be, at the point of the Ring's discovery, so into his Bree disguise as to leave all weapons behind unless he were caught somehow in a very awkward position (ie he was supposed to meet with his second in command for resupply when all hell broke loose, ie he had recently lost his sword in a very tough poker game). I don't find it at all strange that he was armorless or that the other weapon was not APPARENT to his new found friends. I think Aragorn is stealthy enough to have a sword hidden under his pack.


----------



## elvenbladesmith (Jun 18, 2005)

he coulda given his sword i nice coat of oil, and his it in a hallowed out tree, or possibly put it in his room?(or his bedroll) he had been there a few days ya know. i dont care what anyone says, i got wraiths on my tail, ill have a sword. even if id die fighting and the ring would be lost, id rather not die like a animal to slaughter, weaponless. maybe you guys didnt see the movie, you pary with the sword and attack the wraiths with a torch!
hlgstrider, you said he couldnt have been shown as more than a ranger. how would carrying ranger weapons with him hurt that rep? i think carrying the shards of narsil around, in a ranger clothes is gunna draw some attention, right? his ranger sword you say would show aggresion in bree? what about a scabbard with half a sword in it?(narsil shards) it would looks the same as long as it is in the sheath!
also yes i do think anduril would have done something to the wraiths. yes no man can kill the witchking, but aragorn really isnt a man hes a dunedian, a man lives to about 85, aragorn is that old, and hes barely middle aged. so i really dont think hes a man in the traditional sense. a hobbit, and a woman, of the race of MAN killed the witchking, so i think aragorn could. also hes wielding anduril, the sword that destroyed sauron!
who says aragorn isnt a match for 5 wraiths? i dont remember any mention of his fighting skill, or the wraiths for that matter. i always thought of the wraiths as blind zombielike creatures, i think they would be too distracted by the presence of the ring, for them all to be focused on aragorn.
theres a good question, are the wraiths blind? i always thought they were, the just felt the ring, almost smelled it, kinda like when the hobbits are hiding from the dark rider by the tree in the movie, hes smelling the ring. almost like how a bat finds insects, is how i pictured it.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 18, 2005)

Dunedain=Man.
Man=Dunedain.

The first man to try and kill the Wraith King was a Dunedain. It didn't get him far. 



> id rather not die like a animal to slaughter, weaponless. maybe you guys didnt see the movie, you pary with the sword and attack the wraiths with a torch!


I did, actually, and I winced all the way through that scene. My first thought was "That wouldn't work. Your blade would disintigrate, they'd breathe black breath on you, and you'd pass out." My second was, "What the heck, it looks cool. Whatever."



> i think carrying the shards of narsil around, in a ranger clothes is gunna draw some attention, right?


Obviously it didn't because the four Hobbits don't see the sword until he chooses to let them see it. I am guessing his cape covers it. I was alway curious as to whether he had the whole sword with him or just the upper half. If he had the upper half, we're dealing with a much smaller sheeth.



> who says aragorn isnt a match for 5 wraiths? i dont remember any mention of his fighting skill, or the wraiths for that matter.


If you read the Appendix you'll find that five of them road down twenty Rangers at the Ford several days before Frodo made his crossing. If you notice in the battles, no one stands up to the Nazgul. Even in the movies, they simply swoop, and the army melts away beneath them. Only the non-man Gandalf (Maia) dares to challenge and only Eowyn (a WOMAN) and Merry (a HOBBIT) can make the strokes.



> also hes wielding anduril, the sword that destroyed sauron!


At this point he actually isn't. He is weilding tree brands. Narsil only destroyed Sauron at the cost of Gil-Gilad, Anarion, and Elendil. It was a four way battle. Only Isildur managed to survive it, and he cut the finger off an already wounded beyond repair Sauron. It didnt' happen at all like in the movie prologue.



> i always thought of the wraiths as blind zombielike creatures, i think they would be too distracted by the presence of the ring, for them all to be focused on aragorn.


 
Actually, they probably have better vision than we do in the dark. They can smell blood. They were keyed in on the ring which is why they didn't take the time to destroy Frodo, Sam, Pippin, Merry, and Aragorn. Besides, what threat is Aragorn?



> i always thought they were, the just felt the ring, almost smelled it, kinda like when the hobbits are hiding from the dark rider by the tree in the movie, hes smelling the ring


In the books they never got quite that close. Only the noonday sun truly blinds them.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 18, 2005)

I think that he was unarmed, and was goind to go to san ford and pick up his weapons, when he was in bree, he stayed there to long, as they did not know that the nazgul had talked to saruman, and they thought that the gap of rohaan was safe, so when aragorn is walking toward crikelhollow, wondering why the hobbits are not in rivendell by now, he hears Tom speak to them and, unarmed follows them.


----------



## Valandil (Jun 18, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> If you read the Appendix you'll find that five of them road down twenty Rangers at the Ford several days before Frodo made his crossing. If you notice in the battles, no one stands up to the Nazgul. Even in the movies, they simply swoop, and the army melts away beneath them. Only the non-man Gandalf (Maia) dares to challenge and only Eowyn (a WOMAN) and Merry (a HOBBIT) can make the strokes.



Elgee - is that in the Appendices? I don't know of anything that tells us how many rangers were driven off from Sarn Ford - but I could be wrong (EDIT: and note that Sarn Ford is a bit down the river from Buckleberry - where the Hobbits crossed - you might know that, but it sounds like you're talking about the same place). I didn't find it in the Appendices and can't take the time right now to check the UT account, but don't recall anything with precise numbers from there.



HLGStrider said:


> At this point he actually isn't. He is weilding tree brands. Narsil only destroyed Sauron at the cost of Gil-Gilad, Anarion, and Elendil. It was a four way battle. Only Isildur managed to survive it, and he cut the finger off an already wounded beyond repair Sauron. It didnt' happen at all like in the movie prologue.



Slight correction - Anarion had been dead for about a year by then - and I think it was more a five-on-one battle: Elendil was accompanied by his son Isildur and Gil-galad was accompanied by both Elrond and Cirdan, IIRC. (EDIT: and I visualize Elendil and Gil-galad rushing him together, while the others hung back to see how they might come to their aid - so maybe 'two-on-one' at that moment is more precise - and Sauron took them both down with him) So that was still a great cost - the acknowledged leader of Men of Middle-earth, and the acknowledged leader of Elves of Middle-earth.

I'm not certain about your earlier contention that a man would not have been ABLE to kill the Witch-King. I think Glorfindel, when he spoke the words he did (which ARE definitely in Appendix A) either had a glimpse of the future or a revelation in some other form (maybe even HE didn't understand the actual meaning - just that those words would fit W-K's end). When those words got around to W-K, he quite naturally extrapolated them into a feeling of invincibility - which was only shaken a thousand years later, moments before his destruction, when Eowyn turned the words on him and he realized there might be a 'loop-hole' that he had not anticipated.


----------



## Valandil (Jun 18, 2005)

As to the sword, I'm pretty sure there's mention someplace about Aragorn returning to Rivendell for an 'errand' of some kind - just a few months before he meets the hobbits at Bree. Some (including 'he whose name may not be spoken') have speculated that he returned there to retrieve the broken sword of Elendil - maybe thinking it fitting that he should bear it then and reunite with the Ring the sword which cut it from Sauron's hand. Or perhaps a way to fortify himself in his encounter with the Ring - to have something reminiscent of his ancestor who struck the mortal blow with that very item.

It just seems 'fitting' that he should have that sword with him then. But I doubt he had carried it for the previous 67 years of wandering in the wild (nor do I think his ancestors down the line had carried it on their persons, either at times, and certainly not constantly - particularly not the Chieftains of the previous 1000 years). Tolkien's mention of this 'errand' drops us the hint that he didn't need to.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 18, 2005)

That works OK, though i think he had other weapons that were in the same place as his horse.


----------



## elvenbladesmith (Jun 18, 2005)

well strider, thanks for clearing that up. i havent read the books in a long time, i believ i read the fellowship 3 years ago, and then a book a year since. and i only really skimmed the apendices. so as you can imagine im quite rusty. also im a big fan of the movies, so it tends to cloud my thoughts when i talk about the book. 

you said the wraiths would breath on him, and hed pass out? had they been eating alot of onions? and i thought his blade would only disintagrate if he tried to pierced their body/spirit? so wraith blade vs. elf blade, the elf blade would disintagrate upon touching the wraith sword?


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 19, 2005)

It should be noted that Aragorn was given two heirlooms: the ring of Barahir and Narsil. It can be speculated that he kept the ring until Lothlorien when he presented it to Arwen, about twenty years. However, it is a lot easier to carry a ring around safely than other things.


He would have had this ring in Gondor, wouldn't he? I'm not sure if I have my time line straight on this, but Lothlorien came after Gondor, didn't it? 

Anyways. . .



> Elgee - is that in the Appendices?


Thinking back, it might be in the _Book of Lost Tales_ and because of that I am at a disadvantage. I don't own those as a complete set. I just have one small volume. I have read the larger volume _once_ but since then have not been able to find it in my local library, nor for sale for a reasonable price.


----------



## Valandil (Jun 19, 2005)

Ah - OK. I've only begun my HoME collection - I just have two of the later ones.

You are correct that Aragorn would have had the Ring of Barahir when he served in Gondor. I had never thought about that. I wonder if he would have worn it or kept it hidden upon himself - which I guess would depend on whether someone might notice it and be able to guess what it was.

29 years from his first meeting with Arwen to giving her the ring in Lothlorien - to be precise.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 19, 2005)

Precise numbers aren't my thing . . . that's why I'm a banker.


That is so romantic, a family heirloom engagement ring. . .sigh . . .melts. . . swoons. . .

Anyway, I am probably the forum's biggest book Strider-phile (Viggo you can have any old day. Strider as the books portrayed him is MINE!), and even I think it highly unlikely, illogical that he didn't have some sort of weapon on him. I re-read the chapter Strider last night and he is described as basically enveloped in his great, dark green cloak. It concealed Narsil completely. It could have at least also concealed a knife (something it wouldn't have been considered strange for him to be carrying around in the first place.).


----------



## Alatar (Jun 19, 2005)

That would work, as the reason he did not use the knife on weathertop, was that fire was better than any blade.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 19, 2005)

Alatar said:


> That would work, as the reason he did not use the knife on weathertop, was that fire was better than any blade.


 
You mean a bunch of peasants could stave off the nazguls using fire?


----------



## Alatar (Jun 19, 2005)

No, but if aragorn had used a blade and no fire on weatertop, then the terror would have been complete, and would not have retreated after stabbing frodo, but kill aragorn to.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 19, 2005)

Do you think they are afraid of fire-breathing creatures, or of the flames of Mount Doom?Aragorn himself states that what had the greatest impact on the nazguls was Frodo shouting "Elbereth Gilthoniel". And it makes pretty much sense that magic (magic words) affect them and not common elements; I doubt that nazguls are vulnerable to fire - it wouldn't make that useful in a war or on a siege.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 19, 2005)

From the fellowship of the ring.


> There is little shelter or defence here, though fire shall serve for both. Sauron can put fire to his evil uses, as he can all things, but these rider do not love it, and fear those tat use it."


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 19, 2005)

Hmm, yeah... and if we consider that in the next chapter Aragorn says that no blades are useful, you have a good point that fire is better than blades. I still believe that the name of Elbereth drove the nazguls off (not the fire). Tho, most likely, its a matter of debate.


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 19, 2005)

I agree with you... probably.  When Sam and Frodo were captured in Minas Morgul their password was _'Elbereth'_, wasn't it? Sam say that the orcs will never say that word. Maybe the Nazgul afraid, too.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 19, 2005)

What drove the Wraith's off was three fold, in order of importance:

1. Elbereth was said. This also proved to them that Frodo, who up until this point had made very pitiful resistance and was seemingly falling into their hands, was ready to fight.
2. Aragorn was jumping at them with burning brands, which I think would have a similar effect to the water at the Fords, it would decloak them temporarily.
3. They assumed that, with the sliver of the blade in his shoulder, Frodo would quickly succumb to their powers, and they could get him without risking a singing from a suddenly more threatening Aragorn.

It should be noted that Aragorn was not at the top of his "power" at this point. He was undercover, out of guise, and I don't think he was ready to proclaim himself king to the Nazgul who would certainly inform Sauron, "Oh by the way, when we were fighting up North, we bumped into the Heir of Elendil. I thought you told us he was dead?"

It would have been a stupid time to play that card, if he didn't have to.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 19, 2005)

Hm, you are rather contradicting yourself at point three... why would they expect Aragorn to be any threat with his "singing"? It's not like any mortal can stave off nazguls (as if its so, those guys are pretty worthless  )


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 19, 2005)

When Aragorn jumped at them, they probably didn't "see" Aragorn. They saw the burning brands. However, there is a good debate there in an old infamous Harad thread (Called Nazgul Incompetence or something. . .I'll try and drag it up). I think they would have noticed Aragorn was a very brave man, otherwise he would not have jumped forward at all, and they probably would have gotten the idea that he was somehow "special" for lack of a better term, but I don't think he would have gone at them with the full, "I am king, hear me roar," bit.

It is interesting to note that Glorfindel (who we can assume was armed. . .I can't remember if it is mentioned or not) also chooses to wield burning brands at the ford, not whatever sword he happened to have on him, and I would think Glorfindel would have been in possession of a blade at least as powerful as Narsil. He is, after all, a very powerful and ancient elf. 

If so we can assume that Glorfindel, as well as Darling Strider, considers blades useless against these beasties. . .or at least considers fire superior.

However, it was Glorfindel, wasn't it, who made the prophecy that a man could not kill the Nazgul. If he meant that as "man as a sex" rather than "Man as a race" he might have thought "I can't kill this guy anyway, so I'll just frighten them with fiery sticks."


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 19, 2005)

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=2380&highlight=Nazgul

Here we have one of the great classic of the forum. . .I don't know if we ever decided anything in it.


----------



## Valandil (Jun 20, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> :
> :
> :
> However, it was Glorfindel, wasn't it, who made the prophecy that a man could not kill the Nazgul. If he meant that as "man as a sex" rather than "Man as a race" he might have thought "I can't kill this guy anyway, so I'll just frighten them with fiery sticks."



Not 'could not' - but 'would not'... the Nazgul (or W-K in particular, as that's who the prophecy was about) were NOT invincible from men - but I think Glorfindel got a glimpse or revelation of what would come to pass.

Oh - also I don't think Glorfindel necessarily had a sword as good or better than Narsil - unless we're talking about the un-re-forged variety  - I think Narsil and Glamdring were probably the two best personal weapons of their age. They both seem to have been handed down from the First Age - and I don't think that many other First Age weapons were still around late in the Third.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 20, 2005)

There is always Orchirst if you want to go dig it up. . .


I didn't know Narsil's history went that far back. I always assumed it was Numenorean make and came from the island smiths. Anyway, with Nazgul the age of the sword didn't matter, only the intent in its making. I doubt Merry's little blade had the ancestory of Narsil, yet it was made with wraiths in mind, so it enabled his stroke. 

I wonder what a non-wraith-killing blade would have done if it had pierced the Witch King. All we know is that Aragorn states all blades that pierce him perish. It doesn't say what happens to the King. 

Eowyn's blade would have been useless without Merry's stroke, however; and I would assume Narsil or any other blade Aragorn happened to have on him would be likewise futile.


----------



## Telëlambe (Jun 20, 2005)

Are you sure Narsil is that old? i thought it was made in nogrod by Telchar and was named after Elendil's kids?


----------



## Alatar (Jun 20, 2005)

Telchar is preety old, as in he made thingols weapons old. I assume that narsil came from the sack of mengeroth, with thingols sword, and where Thingols sword was a heirloom of the kings, narsil was given to the lord of andune.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jun 20, 2005)

Telëlambe said:


> Are you sure Narsil is that old? i thought it was made in nogrod by Telchar and was named after Elendil's kids?


 
Telchar did made Narsil, but he lived during the First Age. Elendil inherited the sword, probably from his distant ancestor Elros.


----------



## Telëlambe (Jun 21, 2005)

Aaah, so he named his sons after the sword, righto.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 21, 2005)

He wanted to name them after his dog, but his wife objected.



He had a lot of fond memories of that dog.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 21, 2005)

Eledil didn't name Narsil after his sons, or vice versa, as his sons are Isildur and Anorain(sorry about Spelling) none were named narsil.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 21, 2005)

I was wondering about that too. . .but Narsil is a cool name for a dog, isn't it?


----------



## Alatar (Jun 21, 2005)

Though Ringil would be better.
Here boy, put down that ruler of darkness, down!

Okay, i need to calm down.


----------



## Telëlambe (Jun 22, 2005)

there is a connection tho: Nar is a rout word for golden light (the sun) and sil is a rout word for silver light (such as in silmaril) and his sons were I*sil* dur and A*nar* ion
link


----------



## Alatar (Jun 22, 2005)

Never noticed that before. Sil, as in silver light,Isil moon, Isildur. Nar as in golden light Anar the sun, Anarion. So we have Golden Silver light, for Narsil, that hints at the blended light of the trees or the Silmarils, maybe Telcar (dwarf) named his sword as a memorial for either the Sil's which all of the west was fighting for, or the two trees?


----------



## Ingwë (Jun 24, 2005)

Hm, it is very interesting. The Sun and the Moon (silver light) in that great Sword that cut the One Ring from Sauron's hand. The two main elements in the Tolkien's world against the Evil powers. Great!


----------



## Kelendil (Jul 10, 2005)

I heard that Aragorn carries a bow and arrow as well as Narsil. Supposedly this is symbolic in the literature, or is a reflection of Aragorn's lifestyle or heritage. I have not found a specific reference to it in any of Tolkien's literature. Anyone know?


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 10, 2005)

Where is it mentioned that Aragorn carries a bow? I don't remember that. 


I think we can assume a knife. No manly man would be going about without a knife because you can't cut ropes easily with a sword.


----------



## Kelendil (Jul 10, 2005)

That's what I'm trying to find out. I read an article mentioning the bow and its apparent symbolism, but I can't seem to find a reference myself.


----------



## ingolmo (Jul 10, 2005)

I don't think Aragorn ever carried a bow.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 11, 2005)

Well, I don't think it is ever mentioned that he does, but on the other hand it does not say he never had one. It never mentions a knife either. It does say that he carries no other weapon than Anduril on the quest itself, but that does not rule out him carrying one before this point, nor does it rule out a knife which would be seen more as a necessary tool than a weapon.


----------



## Kelendil (Jul 11, 2005)

I am sure that between us all, if there was a mention of Aragorn having a bow, we would have found it. I am going to assume the article inaccurate. Thanks guys.


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 11, 2005)

Could it possibly have been refering to the movie rather than the book?


----------



## ingolmo (Jul 14, 2005)

In the chapter, The Ring Goes South, it's given that Aragorn carried just Anduril. But I do think that he probably did carry a knife usually. I mean, a knife is one of the basic requirements of a traveller, or wanderer.


----------



## Telëlambe (Jul 14, 2005)

And henceforth not a wepon. 
he must have had some kind of a small bow for hunting, i mean he was a ranger, very stelthy character.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Jul 14, 2005)

On the other hand, a good warrior could use alot of things as a weapon. Maybe he was carrying things that look unintersting to us, but which were powerful weapons in his hands.


----------



## Kelendil (Jul 14, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> Could it possibly have been refering to the movie rather than the book?


 
According to the article, it was in the book. I reckon that if the TTF community is unaware of a reference, then it probably doesn't exist.
Has anyone got the book on CR ROM, and can search?


----------



## Gúthwinë (Jul 14, 2005)

Doesn't Celeborn give Aragorn that Elvish Knife or is that just in the movie? Aragorn should at least have a hunting knife.


----------



## Telëlambe (Jul 15, 2005)

Nah, the only thing he gets in Lorien in a fancy scabbard for Anduril. would have been cool tho...


----------



## Valandil (Jul 15, 2005)

If anyone thinks this might pertain to the bow thing, from "The Return of the King" - chapter, 'The Passing of the Grey Company':



> A little apart the Rangers sat, silent, in an ordered company, armed with spear and *bow* and sword.



I suspect that Aragorn would have been proficient in all those weapons himself.

When he set out from Rivendell with only Anduril, I think it was more to make a statement about the re-forging of Elendil's ancient weapon than to show that he was not adept with anything else.

I suspect he also had a knife, which is just basic equipment when you're out in the wilderness - much better for cleaning fish, dressing meat, dozens of other functions. Some have said that if they could only have two things if stranded on a deserted island (dream date of oneself aside), they would choose a knife and a rope. If only one thing - a knife (which could help you make the rope).


----------



## Telëlambe (Jul 15, 2005)

So you would agree that it was an essential of a traveler tool and not a wepon.


----------



## Valandil (Jul 15, 2005)

Oh yes.

COULD be used as a weapon too, if need be.


----------



## Telëlambe (Jul 15, 2005)

ok, but so could anything be used as a wepon. its just a matter of efficiency


----------



## HLGStrider (Jul 16, 2005)

Aragorn proved that sticks and fire make a pretty efficient weapon too. . .


----------

