# Bombadil's choice of weapons: A coincidence?



## Arvedui (Jan 4, 2005)

From _The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-Downs_:


> For each of the hobbits he [Tom Bombadil] choose a dagger, long, leaf-shaped, and keen, of marvellous workmanship, damasked with serpent-forms in red and gold. They gleamed as he drew them from their black sheats, wrought of some strange metal, light and strong, and set with many fiery stones. Whether by some virtue in these sheats or because of the spell that lay on the mound, the blades seemed untouched by time, unrusted, sharp, glittering in the sun.
> 'Old knives are long enough as swords for hobbit-people,' he said. 'Sharp blades are good to have, if Shire-folk go walking, east, south, or far away into dark and danger.' Then he told them that these blades were forged many long years ago by Men of Westernesse: they were foes of the Dark Lord, but they were overcome by the evil king of Carn Dûm in the land of Angmar.


Concidering what befell later, was Bombadil's choice of weapons for the hobbits a pure coincidence?
Did he have such foresight that he 'knew' that one of those knives would come to good use?


----------



## Valandil (Jan 4, 2005)

Either his own foresight... or Eru's hand at work.

Interesting too that it was Merry who spoke when awakened, a couple pages before, recalling from his dream, perhaps ancient memories of those overcome by the men of Carn Dum. The king who sat at Carn Dum, of course, was the Witch-King... and before long, he, Merry and one of those daggers would all come around together again.

One of those daggers even had an earlier 'near-miss' on the Witch-King - when Frodo cut the hem of his black cloak at Weathertop (another outpost destroyed by his forces - over 1600 years before). And with the heir of those over-thrown right back there on the spot too!  

Tangential... but I suppose many other wonderful things were left in that pile, for 'all kindly creatures' to claim, besides the brooch and four daggers, of which we know. I expect there could be many good stories to come from there...


----------



## Arvedui (Jan 4, 2005)

Valandil said:


> One of those daggers even had an earlier 'near-miss' on the Witch-King - when Frodo cut the hem of his black cloak at Weathertop (another outpost destroyed by his forces - over 1600 years before). And with the heir of those over-thrown right back there on the spot too!


I think that I sense another "what if...?" coming up.
If Frodo's knife had been but a little longer, then the Witch-king would have been vulnerable to destruction much sooner. But would any of the others have sensed the opportunity.

(And now I am getting well away from the topic...)


----------



## GuardianRanger (Jan 4, 2005)

My take is that since Bombadil uttered the following line:



> Sharp blades are good to have, if Shire-folk go walking, east, south, or far away into dark and danger.



He might have known/seen more than he let on at all.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 4, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> From _The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring, Fog on the Barrow-Downs_:
> 
> Concidering what befell later, was Bombadil's choice of weapons for the hobbits a pure coincidence?
> Did he have such foresight that he 'knew' that one of those knives would come to good use?



I'm not sure of what was in Bombadil's mind, but I'm sure it was in _Tolkien's_ mind — at some point or other — to make sure these weapons were absolutely crucial: the ones used in future to defeat enemies against whom no other weapons would work. Otherwise, the whole Bombadil episode becomes nothing more than an agreeable aside.

Barley


----------



## Phantom (Jan 4, 2005)

I've wondered what if Frodo had the knife that was given to Merry, the knife he used against the witch king later in the story. Frodo's blade was destroied when it entered the witch king, but Merry's blade survived later slayed the witch king. Also, since all the blades looked the same, why did one harm the leader of the Nazgûl while the other was destoried by him?


----------



## aragil (Jan 4, 2005)

Frodo's swipe was a near miss- he only got the Witch King's cloak, not the actual Witch King. Apparently the four daggers were identical, so we can presume that if Frodo had stabbed WK in the same manner that Merry later did, then it would have had the same effect. Conversely, if WK had been able to put his full attention on Merry during the later confrontation, he could have destroyed that blade as well.

Regarding Tolkien and the writing, I'm relatively sure TB's words were ammended after the Pelannor scenario was written. When Fog on the Barrow Downs was originally written, Tolkien had no clear concept of who the Black Riders were, nor did the Northern Kingdom of the Dunedain 'exist' as such.

Slight historical note on the Barrow-Downs: they were never technically 'destroyed' by the forces of the Witch King. In the War of TA 1409 (the one in which the Tower of Amon Sul was lost) the last prince of Cardolan fell, but the Dunedain of Cardolan persisted. This is mentioned in the Appendix B entry for TA 1409, where the Barrow Downs are referred to as 'Tyrn Gorthad'. Interestingly, it was probably the tomb of this last prince of Cardolan in which the four Hobbits were later captured. However, the Barrow Downs did not become 'evil' until after the great plague of TA 1636, which finally wiped out the Dunedain of Cardolan.
As a side note, I always appreciated the movie sequence where the four Hobbit swords were found at Weathertop. I had hoped that this would be a nod to the books due to the commonality of Amon Sul and Tyrn Gorthad in the struggle of the Dunedain against the Witch King, although it looks like that was probably unintentional on the part of the film-makers.


----------



## Akallabeth (Jan 5, 2005)

Phantom said:


> I've wondered what if Frodo had the knife that was given to Merry, the knife he used against the witch king later in the story. Frodo's blade was destroied when it entered the witch king, but Merry's blade survived later slayed the witch king. Also, since all the blades looked the same, why did one harm the leader of the Nazgûl while the other was destoried by him?


 But Merry's blade was destroyed when it later created the end of the Witch King:


> Then he _(Merry)_ looked for his sword that he had let fall; for even as he struck his blow his arm was numbed, and now he could only use his left hand. And behold! there lay his weapon, but the blade was smoking like a dry branch that has been thrust in a fire; and as he watched it, it writhed and withered and was consumed.


----------



## aragil (Jan 5, 2005)

But of course Merry's sword had a physical effect on the Witch King and was destroyed during that physical contact. Frodo's sword had no effect on the WK, and was destroyed simply by the WK raising his arm and voicing an apparent spell. 
I think that was Phantom's question, and it is resolved by the facts that Frodo didn't physically touch the WK, and the WK was not concentrating on Merry's sword.


----------



## Eledhwen (Jan 5, 2005)

The key bit comes later, Akallabeth, after Eomer discovers Eowyn and Merry is left standing, dazed on the battlefield:


> Then he looked for the sword that he had let fall; for even as he struck his blow his arm was numbed and now he could only use his left hand. and behold! there lay his weapon, but the blade was smoking like a dry branch that has been thrust in a fire; and as he watched it, it writhed and withered and was consumed.
> So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in teh North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not thoug mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, *cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.*


There are a number of reasons to believe that the knives were specially chosen:

Tom did not invite them to choose their own weapons, but searched the mound himself for suitable weapons.
Tom knew the history of the blades he chose.
Tom almost certainly knew the magical qualities of the blades, as did Aragorn in THE DEPARTURE OF BOROMIR when he found the blades and said '... Doubtless the Orcs despoiled them, but feared to keep the knives, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor.'
Maybe Merry's dream prompted Tom; but his foreknowledge of the weapons and, maybe also, some understanding of the nature of the power that kept the undead Ringwraiths alive from his handling of the Ring.

Tom also seemed to know that leaving the treasure for other passers-by (ie: dispersing it) was the way to break the magic of the barrow. I am now wondering if this was what should have been done with dragon hoardes that had such devastating effects on those Middle-earth dwellers who tried to keep an unfair amount of the treasure for themselves. Was Tolkien saying that if the likes of Thingol and Thorin had been fair with their treasure, it would not have damaged their characters so?

Thanks, Arvedui for a great thread!


----------



## Phantom (Jan 5, 2005)

I haven't read ROTK for a while (I'm re-reading the trillogy, but I'm only around the end of FOTR). I'm in 9th grade, and some parts of the book are still a little confusing, so I guess I didn't catch that the Witch King wasn't expecting Merry's attack, and therefore wasn't concentrating on it, but expected Frodo's attack. Too bad one of the other Hobbits didn't stab the Witch King in the back while he was going after Frodo.


----------



## Thráin II (Jan 5, 2005)

aragil said:


> As a side note, I always appreciated the movie sequence where the four Hobbit swords were found at Weathertop. I had hoped that this would be a nod to the books due to the commonality of Amon Sul and Tyrn Gorthad in the struggle of the Dunedain against the Witch King, although it looks like that was probably unintentional on the part of the film-makers.


 
You make a good point, but the way the movie handled it raises another, let's say, more pressing issue. Has Aragorn been carrying around four blades besides his own in the wilderness? How did he get them? What was he doing carrying FOUR blades (as far as I know he had no knowledge he was expecting four hobbits). Where did he keep them up until the point where they reached Amon Sul? It makes it all a bit hard to believe if you have an eye for these sort of things.

As for the topic at hand, I am quite sure that the blades were not chosen each for a specific hobbit:



> While they were eating *Tom went up to the mound, and looked through the treasures.* Most of these he made into a pile that glistened and sparkled on the grass. He bade them lie there 'free to all finders, birds, beasts. Elves or Men, and all kindly creatures'; for so the spell of the mound should be broken and scattered and no Wight ever come back to it. He chose for himself from the pile a brooch set with blue stones, many-shaded like flax-flowers or the wings of blue butterflies.


 _The Fellowship of the Ring, Book I, Chapter 8, Fog on the Barrow-Downs_

I think that Tom just thought of looking around the things that were in the hobbits' prison and the things he thought were useful, he put aside, such as the brooch for Goldberry and the blades for the hobbits. In the following paragraphs there is no mention of the swords being different between themselves so I think we can assume they were as identical as hand-made swords can be.

And I'm also quite convinced that the Witch King could have withstood the blow a lot better had he been focused on it, and that also he could have dismissed the blade by some spell (again).

He was however literally backstabbed... I don't think that Frodo's blow to the aware With King would have been enough to kill him (hobbits are considered men I believe, by the saying that "no man can kill" the Nine so I guess the hobbit couldn't have killed regardless of what weapon he was wielding).


----------



## aragil (Jan 5, 2005)

Thráin II said:


> You make a good point, but the way the movie handled it raises another, let's say, more pressing issue. Has Aragorn been carrying around four blades besides his own in the wilderness? How did he get them? What was he doing carrying FOUR blades (as far as I know he had no knowledge he was expecting four hobbits). Where did he keep them up until the point where they reached Amon Sul? It makes it all a bit hard to believe if you have an eye for these sort of things.


 Actually, that was my point- he probably wasn't toting them around, but rather found them stashed at Amon Sul. Since Amon Sul was a Dunedain stronghold engaged in the struggle against the Witch King, it becomes the likeliest candidate to find such works of Westernesse, after the Barrow Downs are omitted from the film.



Thráin II said:


> He was however literally backstabbed... I don't think that Frodo's blow to the aware With King would have been enough to kill him (hobbits are considered men I believe, by the saying that "no man can kill" the Nine so I guess the hobbit couldn't have killed regardless of what weapon he was wielding).


 Hobbits are considered a race seperate from men (i.e. the atani or edain), and so Merry (or Frodo) could have as well been the agent of the Witch King's demise. The whole point of the 'prophecy' is that Glorfindel somehow understands that the Witch King will be killed by a woman and a Hobbit, but that the Witch King takes this the wrong way- that he is invulnerable since he can't be killed by 'man'.
Incidentally, here are a few snippets relating to the linguistics of the prophecy:
http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?p=42005#post42005


----------



## Thráin II (Jan 6, 2005)

aragil said:


> Actually, that was my point- he probably wasn't toting them around, but rather found them stashed at Amon Sul. Since Amon Sul was a Dunedain stronghold engaged in the struggle against the Witch King, it becomes the likeliest candidate to find such works of Westernesse, after the Barrow Downs are omitted from the film.


 
I don't think such nice weapons would have lasted very long in that place now deserted and not very far from the main road. But if they had been there, and had the film-makers included a small explination (yet larger than the one-line reference we see in the film) as to the nature of the place, it would all have worked out for the best.



> Hobbits are considered a race seperate from men (i.e. the atani or edain), and so Merry (or Frodo) could have as well been the agent of the Witch King's demise. The whole point of the 'prophecy' is that Glorfindel somehow understands that the Witch King will be killed by a woman and a Hobbit, but that the Witch King takes this the wrong way- that he is invulnerable since he can't be killed by 'man'.


 
That also makes my point, since there was no woman (Eowyn?) with Frodo on Amon Sul so he couldn't, according to the prophecy, have killed the With King there - which means that in a way or another he would have survived.


----------



## Eledhwen (Jan 6, 2005)

5 Ringwraiths versus 1 Ranger and 4 terrified Hobbits?

There was only one person able to fight. Frodo lashed out in terror, but as Aragorn pointed out, it was the name of Elbereth that did the most hurt, not Frodo's knife. The wraiths only retreated because now the knife point was embedded in Frodo, they only had to wait for him to fall under its spell and return to them. It was the indomitable hobbit spirit in Frodo that got him safely to Rivendell, along with the timely intervention of Glorfindel.

As per my quote earlier, in the film it would have been good if Aragorn had said that the blades were of Westernesse, and wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor, as it was this that made the Witch King vulnerable to Eowyn's blade. Tom Bombadil was magical, and stronger than most other beings in Middle-earth, as he could handle the Ring without effect, maybe even read its secrets, and so know what blades the hobbits would need if they were to encounter the Ringwraiths again - which seemed very likely.


----------



## Valandil (Jan 6, 2005)

Thráin II said:


> That also makes my point, since there was no woman (Eowyn?) with Frodo on Amon Sul so he couldn't, according to the prophecy, have killed the With King there - which means that in a way or another he would have survived.



I disagree. For one, while Tolkien groups Hobbits with Men, I don't think that either Hobbits or Men - or even Elves or Witch-Kings, would have seen it that way. They all preceived Hobbits as a race apart.

Also - the killing of the Witch-King did not rely on fulfilling the prophecy - the prophecy relied on how the Witch-King would be killed. It was entirely possible for Aragorn to kill the Witch-King, if he had used a weapon which would have done it harm. Had he done so - the prophecy would have been different - or it would have been wrong.

In other words, Glorfindel didn't place some kind of 'blessing' on the W-K - or specify conditions for his demise... he had a glimpse of how his ending would come, and he shared that. Something which Earnur should have taken to heart.


----------



## Arvedui (Jan 6, 2005)

I don't understand why we are discussing the film-version here? Each post that touches upon the finding of the weapons in the film, only work to show that it did not work very well!
But then again, little emphasis is put on the "sword" of Merry in the Film...



Eledhwen said:


> Tom also seemed to know that leaving the treasure for other passers-by (ie: dispersing it) was the way to break the magic of the barrow. I am now wondering if this was what should have been done with dragon hoardes that had such devastating effects on those Middle-earth dwellers who tried to keep an unfair amount of the treasure for themselves. Was Tolkien saying that if the likes of Thingol and Thorin had been fair with their treasure, it would not have damaged their characters so?


Maybe. I have never thought about that possibility before. But I think that you may have a point. I think that Greed was one of the things that Tolkien seriously disliked. And his use of Tom Bombadil vs. Thingol/Thorin is probably intentional.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 6, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> I don't understand why we are discussing the film-version here?



Not me! Someone is misunderstanding something then: obviously since Bombadil never came up in the movies, we _must_ be talking about the books. To reiterate my last post: 

The whole reason for the Bombadil episode to be in the books at all (only to be discovered much later) was so that the hobbits could be supplied with the weapons which were made specifically to be used against Sauron's forces and the Ringwraiths. Otherwise it's nothing more than a questionable side trip, seen from the standpoint of the forward motion of the plot.

Barley


----------



## aragil (Jan 6, 2005)

Valandil said:


> In other words, Glorfindel didn't place some kind of 'blessing' on the W-K - or specify conditions for his demise... he had a glimpse of how his ending would come, and he shared that. Something which Earnur should have taken to heart.


Exactly!!! Why can't I state things so clearly?



Thráin II said:


> ...But if they had been there, and had the film-makers included a small explination (yet larger than the one-line reference we see in the film) as to the nature of the place, it would all have worked out for the best.


&


Arvedui said:


> I don't understand why we are discussing the film-version here? Each post ... only works to show that it did not work very well!


That's what I said:


aragil said:


> I had hoped ... although it looks like that was probably unintentional on the part of the film-makers.


 I brought up the film-version because I thought that the film could have shed some more light on the nature of the swords, using Amon Sul to parallel the Barrow Downs as a source for magically ensorcelled swords of Westernesse. The fact that the film didn't seize this opportunity is regrettable, but also tangential to the subject of this thread, which is why I didn't mention it in my original posting. However, bringing up the commonality of Tyrn Gorthad and Amon Sul did pertain to the subject matter of the thread (though not the Bombadil angle), and followed off the earlier post of Valandil, so I thought I'd bring it up. Sorry for the sidetrack.

Incidentally, it's interesting that Aragorn is willing to share more information (after a fashion) about the Ringwraiths with the Hobbits than Bombadil or the Elves, even though Bombadil was willing to equip them.



Barliman Butterbur said:


> ...Otherwise it's nothing more than a questionable side trip, seen from the standpoint of the forward motion of the plot.


 Of course, it was originally just such a side trip! I suppose this is a testament to the endlessly-revised writing style of Tolkien- tortuous for the writer, but well worth the trouble from the standpoint of the reader!


----------



## Arvedui (Jan 7, 2005)

aragil said:


> That's what I said: I brought up the film-version because I thought that the film could have shed some more light on the nature of the swords, using Amon Sul to parallel the Barrow Downs as a source for magically ensorcelled swords of Westernesse.


I agree that your initial idea was very good (as always), but as I said earlier, the film-version in fact gave no explanation about the significanse of the weapons at all! (Stupid PJ et al...)



aragil said:


> Incidentally, it's interesting that Aragorn is willing to share more information (after a fashion) about the Ringwraiths with the Hobbits than Bombadil or the Elves, even though Bombadil was willing to equip them.


 If I remember correctly, then Aragorn was a bit reluctant, wasn't he? At least in the beginning.


----------



## aragil (Jan 7, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> If I remember correctly, then Aragorn was a bit reluctant, wasn't he? At least in the beginning.



The principals advice was:
Gandalf, in Hobbiton:


> 'Nine he gave to Mortal Men, proud and great, and so ensnared them. Long ago they fell under the dominion of the One, and they became Ringwraiths, shadows under his great Shadow, his most terrible servants. Long ago. It is many a year since the Nine walked abroad. Yet who knows? As the Shadow grows once more, they too may walk again.'


Gildor:


> {Pippin}‘Tell us about the Black Riders!’ ...
> {Gildor}‘We will not speak of this here.’ ...
> {Gildor}‘Has Gandalf told you nothing?’
> {Frodo}‘Nothing about such creatures.’
> ...


Tom Bombadil, at his house:


> Tom wagged his head up and down, and there was a glint in his eyes when he heard of the Riders.


Tom Bombadil, on the road to Bree:


> Out east my knowledge fails. Tom is not master of Riders from the Black Land far beyond his country.'
> All the same the hobbits wished he was coming with them. They felt that he would know how to deal with Black Riders, if anyone did.


Aragorn in Bree:


> 'They will return. And more are coming. There are others. I know their number. I know these Riders.' ... 'They will come on you in the wild, in some dark place where there is no help. Do you wish them to find you? They are terrible!' ... 'There! Perhaps I know more about these pursuers than you do. You fear them, but you do not fear them enough, yet.' ... 'They come from Mordor. From Mordor, Barliman, if that means anything to you.' ...
> {Merry}'I don't know what came over me.'
> {Aragorn}'I do. The Black Breath.'


Aragorn at Weathertop:


> 'For the black horses can see, and the Riders can use men and other creatures as spies, as we found at Bree. They themselves do not see the world of light as we do, but our shapes cast shadows in their minds, which only the noon sun destroys; and in the dark they perceive many signs and forms that are hidden from us: then they are most to be feared. And at all times they smell the blood of living things, desiring and hating it. Senses, too, there are other than sight or smell. We can feel their presence - it troubled our hearts, as soon as we came here, and before we saw them; they feel ours more keenly. Also, the Ring draws them.' ... 'There is little shelter or defence here, but fire shall serve for both. Sauron can put fire to his evil uses, as he can all things, but these Riders do not love it, and fear those who wield it. Fire is our friend in the wilderness.' ... 'This was the stroke of Frodo's sword. The only hurt that it did to his enemy, I fear; for it is unharmed, but all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King. More deadly to him was the name of Elbereth.'


Gandalf, in Rivendell:


> {Gandalf}'But my time is coming. The Morgul-lord and his Black Riders have come forth. War is preparing!'
> {Frodo}`Then you knew of the Riders already – before I met them?'
> {Gandalf}'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 like Gildor's foreshadow with 'May Elbereth protect you!' But, as Frodo pointed out, there was a lot of terrible hints, but rather little substance before Aragorn spills some of the beans. Bombadil can perhaps be forgiven, as the Hobbits don't put any questions to him directly. Still, given that Frodo is the Ring Bearer, you'd think somebody could have explained to him why the Black Riders could sense the Ring!


----------



## Valandil (Jan 7, 2005)

Isn't this more a matter of the author giving us the information in steady doses? Frodo talked to Gandalf first, Gildor next, then Tom Bombadil (who wasn't so helpful on this point), then to Strider. It just suited the author's purpose for us to learn a little more at each stage of the game.


----------



## aragil (Jan 7, 2005)

I agree, though I don't think it's as simple as releasing steady doses- ironically the first words by Gandalf tell us the most about the nature of the Riders, we just don't know it until later! 
I think that more than just incrementally giving us information, he was trying to build atmosphere. By just giving us these 'terrifying hints' he makes the Riders an unknown. I suppose it's analogous to a movie where we just see bits and pieces of an approaching monster before it is revealed in all its glory- this way leaves more to the imagination!


----------



## Arvegil (Jan 7, 2005)

Although, Bombadil's knowledge of the weapons may have been based on his personal knowledge of their original owners (like the implied knowledge about the original brooch owner) as any innate ability to sense any special characteristics of the weapons.


----------



## Eledhwen (Jan 9, 2005)

Excellent observation Arvegil. It seems so obvious now you've said it


----------

