Did Aragorn really walk around the Wild with just a broken sword for protection?
 

He can't have but I see no mention of him carrying any other weapon before Narsil is reforged. I don't think he had another sword. But no mention of spears or axes or anything :confused:

Well, being a ranger, he probably had a bow and arrow. And maybe also a dagger. Other than that, I'm not really sure.

Aragorn said that he "had some skill as a hunter at need" (or like that) so he probably had some ranged weapon. Besides, to skin an animal you need some form of blade (duh) and I can't see Aragorn handling his legendary sword to do that.

Whilst he walked in the wilderness for so long and fought for Rohan and Gondor it seems as if he did not have an own weapon, something he could in a way attach to. Usually in Tolkien's works heroes have a special bond to their weapons and they also have special powers. In Aragorn's case the shards of Narsil. The fact that he could not actually use the weapon is less important - it matters that THIS was his own weapon, the one he was bound to.

What he used during his journeys is rather irrelevant - bow and arrows, swords, knives, spears... whilst reading LotR one realises that he must have used most types of weapons considering his skill. So of course he had something to defend himself with, it's only that naming what it was was not important for Tolkien as no such special relationship as those mentioned above existed.

I never could figure out why Aragorn had the shards of Narsil with him. As a weapon the broken Narsil would be fairly useless, but it would still give people the impression he was armed with a heavy battlesword. And I don't think it was commonplace for people carrying such around in their everyday business. As his "job" as a ranger involved keeping a low profile, is would be unwise to draw attention to himself like this. At Riveldell the shards of Narsil would be safe, and not of less use.

I have to admit that it is one of those things that are nice symbolically but are completely impracticable and unlikely. Don't faint everyone but I think that this is one of the things the film were right to change (and you don't catch me saying that very often). :p .

A longsword is not the most practical weapon for someone travelling stealthily on foot and to lug a broken one is a bit stupid no matter how great teh sentimental value. Much more sensible to leave it in safety and carry a short bow and a short or at least functional sword.

Aragorn (like anyone who ventures into the country for more than a gentle stroll)would have certainly carried a knife suitable for cleaning fish, skinning rabbits etc - even Sam does this and he is far less of a traveller. There was a time when carrying a knife was a day to day practicality. I certainly take a small swiss army type thing when I travel - never know when you might have to open a can, or remove a stone from a dragon's foot....

Telcontar tooled up
 

When Aragorn is first described he is meeting the Hobbits in the Prancing Pony. Possibly he had already rented a room and left his 'conventional' weapons and other gear in there? I guess he would have kept Anduril on his person just in case someone tried to nick it or he had to make a swift exit, after all even broken it was still irreplaceable.

On the Nazgul encounters he seemed to know that the fire-brands were more effective than ordinary swords.

But this doesn't prove anything one way or the other!

I'm sure everyone carried a knife in LoTR, essential for travelling, though don't try and get one onto an airliner!

I will have to agree with this. The whole idea of Aragorn going out in the wilderness to protect Frodo and the ring completely unarmed would be bewildering for a movie audience. Yet, having Aragorn fight the Nazgul in an action-hero scene was a deviation from the original narrative I can not accept. This scene should have been made in horror-style. There should have been unseen and paralyzing terror, shilling to the very bone, not just a straight-forward attack by robed skeletons with swords.

Still, he was the chieftain of the dúnedain and the rightful heir of two kingdoms. While I agree that he certainly had to have another weapon to actually use, I consider the shards of Narsil a status symbol. Served also as an ID.

I can't remember reading anywhere that Aragorn carried the shards with him also other times than when he met the hobbits. But I think that their symbolic value might reach that of a good luck talisman of some kind, and therefore it was understandable that Aragorn had them with him at least then.

edit: xed with skip spence

I have to disagree with you, to some extent. Breelanders recognised rangers as foreigners, so what would be the use to try to stay hidden? I imagine all rangers carried a sword, so he would draw more attention to himself by not having one.

I think it likely that the shards of Narsil usually remained in Rivendell and did not accompany Aragorn in during all his Third Age exploits. Practically speaking, a broken sword, as Aragorn himself recognises, is of no real use.

Reading the last line I get the impression that Strider had only recently taken to carrying the sword around, as he senses his destiny approaching. Perhaps he was carrying it on that particular occasion as a talisman of sorts, taking the sword that separated Sauron from his Ring as he went in search of the Ringbearer.

Nope Morwen, I believe he was given both the Shards of Narsil as well as the Ring of Barahir as he left Rivendell and carried them around on his voyages through Middle-earth.

Yes, I believe Miggy is right here. Or at least that's how it looks from the tale of Aragorn and Arwen and from the Tale of the Years:

Because he's a gangsta and does what he wants. :cool:

We can talk about practicality all we like, but ultimately one of the things that sets heroes apart is that they do things that are impractical for normal people. Like traveling enormous distances by foot in short periods of time, or summoning dead warriors, or mastering Palantiri, or carrying around one's shattered ancestral blade. It's a myth. Heroes do crazy stuff.

If we are going to be all realistic, though, then I'd bet that Aragorn had a short bow along with him and a hunting knife. If he did carry a "useful" sword with him in addition to Narsil, it probably would have been something short, and he probably would have only brought it with him on particular journeys.

That's where our imaginations differ then. I imagine the rangers as almost disregarded by the likes of Breelanders, as anonymous strangers traveling in ragged clothes, yet behind the scenes working hard to protect their ancestoral homeland. Perhaps they carried a light bow for hunting and a knife, much needed in the wilderness. I don't see them carrying around swords like Narsil no (it must have been a long and heavy sword, designed for fighting iron-clad enemies in open battle; does Aragorn swing it two-handedly btw?) and now, thinking about it, I don't believe JRRT envisioned Aragorn carrying the shards with him at all times. That is absurd, after all. He served in the armies of both Gondor and Rohan and presumably fought with them on several occations too. To be carrying around the shards of a useless sword in a real battle would be risking the lifes of his friends for the sentimental value of a relic. Would Aragorn do that? So I must agree with Morwen: the shards would've been locked away in uncle Elrond's safe on most of Aragorn's daring adventures.

Edit (x-posted w Gwathagor): The quote provided by Legate of Amon Lanc only really proves that Aragorn recieved the relics. It doesn't imply that he carried the them around, or that he did not.

I also have a hard time seeing the greatest huntsman and traveler of the age lugging around a broken heirloom just because. This is a man who spent years in the wild, served in Gondor and Rohan, who ventured " far into the East and deep into the south". If you are going to spend years at a time away from home, making many a perilous journey, a broken object of no immediate use that would take up space and weigh you down is not the first object that you should pack.

I think that the handover that Legate and the Might refer to is symbolic : Aragorn has come of age, Elrond says you are now entitled to have these things. But I don't see that this automatically means that Aragorn was then required to take them along with him wherever he went. Why remove them after all from a place where they had been safe for centuries?

I see our points of view really differ at this point, but I am going to post my view on this:

My answer would be, because it is no longer their place. The tale has moved on. In the same way as Bilbo could no longer carry the Ring (although it's somewhat clumsy comparison). Anyway, the point is, Aragorn, from this point on, takes the responsibility on himself - the responsibility for the fate for the bloodline as ancient as... well, very ancient. It is interesting also, that right after learning this, the first person Aragorn meets and tells her about his ancestry makes him feel the ancestry not as noble and important (cf. the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen). Something like a fail-safe against arrogance this early on? And with this meeting comes some sort of different reason for him to stay true to his mission - or a thing to think of at least for now, something which will remain sowed in his heart and reveal in full strength at the moment he and Arwen make a promise to each other on Cerin Amroth. But to return to the topic of the sword, this is something significant and crucial to his personal tale - which was the continuation of the tale of all his ancestors - and so I believe he would carry it with him all the time.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree.

Of course the sword is significant to Aragorn's personal tale. I've never said that it wasn't. I just don't believe that this can be treated as definitive proof that during all the years of his travels he must have taken the sword with him everywhere.

I also don't think that the "Bilbo hands over the Ring" comparison is apt. It is important, inevitable that the Ring must leave the physical custody and safekeeping of one bearer and go to another. The new Ringbearer has to become the Ring's physical custodian.
Aragorn having physical custody of the sword is not important in the same way. To me, what was more important on the day that Elrond "delivered to him the heirlooms of his house" was the revelation of his true name and "who he was and whose son". It is that knowledge, not the possession/custody of objects, that makes Aragorn take responsibility on his self and what prompts him to his subsequent deeds.
I therefore disagree that in the aftermath of Elrond's revelation to Aragorn that Rivendell is no longer the place for the heirlooms (ring and sword). In my opinion, the physical location of those objects isn't the point of the revelation. From that day forward Aragorn may certainly do with them as he pleases. But, Elrond isn't after all telling him to take his things and go.

Well, you heard my opinion. I am not taking you yours, I am offering the view I stand by. The revelation were words by which the heritage was revealed and dedicated. Aragorn "took it" by hearing it. Then there was the physical act of actually taking the sword. By having it, Aragorn simply symbolized even in apparent way (and not just in his mind) his connection to the story, the continuity. I don't want to "downplay it" to symbolism, quite the opposite, I think that's actually the point - inside the tale - and it will show he takes it seriously (in the terms given by the tale).

Isildur took the shards home with him. Shortly before Isildur was killed in the second year of the Third Age in the disaster at the Gladden Fields, the shards of Narsil were rescued by Ohtar, squire of Isildur. He took them to Imladris, where Isildur's youngest son Valandil was fostered.

The Shards of Narsil became one of the heirlooms of the Kings of Arnor, and after the Northern Kingdom was destroyed they remained an heirloom of the Rangers of the North. The sword was reforged in Rivendell in 3019 T.A. during the War of the Ring, in celebration of the rediscovery and capture of the Ring with which it had become associated as its symbolic antithesis.

Now it is my opinion that Aragorn would take this on his trips through the wild, maybe not the shards, but at least the hilt. This would serve as a reminder to him of his ancestory and an inspiration to his fellow rangers. Narsil certainly wasn't his primary weapon of course, I'm sure he carried another sword. It would serve as a proof of his heritage not only to himself but to those who met him. He could very easily prove who he was by the shards on him.

How much sense does it make just from a perspective of respect for the heirloom itself? Lugging the shards around (are we to expect that they really fit like puzzle pieces into the sheath? Can you imagine the Elvish swordsmiths shaking the sheath up and down to get that laaaast stubborn shard out of there?) in the wild is ill treatment to the heirloom of the house of Isildur.

And for other reasons mentioned above (defense, practicality, etc.) I agree that this change in the movie was for the better.

But then he could just as well do it with the ring, which does not weigh 20kg or something (Well, ok, since it's dwarf-make, and they're the best, 15kg).

But having the sword with him at all times sounds just like something he would do.

However practical on impractical carrying all parts of the sword might have been, if Aragorn were to carry the sword with him, I say all of it. Otherwise, it won't have any sense.

If he was to take it, it would be all of the shards, or none, I can't imagine he would simply carry the hilt to remind him.

I agree with Knight of Gondor though, it just smacks of poor treatment of the heirloom of Isildur for Aragorn to carry it around with him the entire time when he is out in the wild, especially when it serves no purpose. As was said above, I always believed that the giving of the shards by Elrond, when Aragorn came of age, was purely a symbolic gesture, telling him who he was, where he came from and what he was destined to be.

Also, after Elrond told him, would he really need anything to remind him that he was the rightful King of the two kingdoms?? Be it the shards of Narsil or the ring of Barahir, would that really be necessary?

You can fight with a broken sword, although it's different from fighting with a normal one.

Also, maybe Aragorn simply didn't want to carry any other sword but the sword of his ancestors that had special meaning for him. That would explain a lot. Okay, he definitely wielded a different sword in Gondor and Rohan, but I could see him not wanting to use any other sword but Narsil unless it was absolutely necessary. Thus, in the North, where those who could recognise the sword knew who he was anyway and the rest could not identify the legendary weapon, he had little reason (except for it being impractical) not to carry it.

Even if Aragorn were somehow minded to carry his broken sword with him to the far corners of Arda, would he be using it as a weapon? Wouldn't fighting with a broken sword or any broken weapon for that matter put you at a disadvantage when fighting against persons whose weapons are intact? Combat is one area where practicality has to trump sentiment. No fighting with broken swords unless absolutely necessary.

If, as we are occasionally reminded in LotR, "luck" (and therefore "coincidence") is not the random occurrence that it is presumed to be, consider the following "coincidences" of the situation in Bree:

Aragorn is there on the lookout for Frodo, and just happens to find him listening through a hedge outside of Bree.

Butterbur just happens to forget to send the letter to Frodo, which contains vital information as to Strider's true identity.

That letter contains a verse about the "blade that was broken," which Aragorn admits is "not much use," but that "the time is coming when it will be forged anew."

The presumption is that Aragorn must cart this thing about with him all the time, or that it is kept in Rivendell. I tend to think that the latter reasoning comes from lingering impressions of Jackson's films. To me, the more logical presumption is that the shards were kept by all of Aragorn's forefathers. Note that in appendix A, it is said that Elrond "delivered to him the heirlooms of his house" when he told the fatherless Aragorn of his true identity and lineage. It would make more sense, I think, if the heirlooms of the Numenorean kings had been kept by their descendants, until Arathorn died untimely and the two-year-old Aragorn was taken into Elrond's house for fostering and protection. Once Aragorn took up the task as Chieftain of the Dunedain of Arnor, it would seem to me more fitting that he would leave such things in the care of his people when they were not on his person. If so, then it is quite possible that Aragorn, being a man foresighted, sensed that it was time for him to take Narsil with him to Rivendell, where he ultimately hoped to take Frodo and the Ring. He knew that events were moving toward some crisis, and said as much when he stated that the time was coming for Narsil to be reforged. As was already said, he felt his destiny upon him, and acted accordingly -- else there would have been little point in taking with him a sword he acknowledges as useless.

And if he had made a habit of this for a long time, it would have been dangerous. Imagine how Denethor would have felt about Thorongil if it had been discovered that he was toting about the shards of Narsil! Or, if in his travels, Aragorn had been slain by orcs when he was alone, thus either losing the heirloom, or having it fall into the hands of the Enemy (who might then put two and two together and realize that he had managed to kill a still living heir of Isildur). No, I do tend to think that Aragorn was moved to take the sword from where it was kept with his people, so that it would be with him Rivendell to be proof to Boromir (and others) as to his identity, and so that it would at last be reforged. If it had already been in Rivendell, there would've been no reason for him to have it with him, and to me, it just doesn't make sense that he would cart it about out of habit.

Just a bit of post-vacation thought. :)

Not necessary, however, there surely may have been times when he was in doubt about his task and such and at these times, having the sword (and the other things) physically as a reminder may have been of help. But mainly, I don't even think it would be necessary for him, but "this is simply the way it is done". Just like that.

Well, even this could be questioned, I believe, when it comes to Middle-Earth. After all, Sauron WAS defeated with the broken sword. And then, the other thing is - how many enemies armed with an actual weapon, the more a weapon like a sword, Aragorn met in the Wilderness? Not speaking about Gondor and Rohan, I would side with Lommy there and think that he probably used a different sword there, also for the reason that he should not reveal tokens of his heritage in these places yet. He probably was given something by the king/Steward, first he probably got some "basic weapon" like every warrior, later, he may have been personally given something better for his bravery and good service. Anyway, back to what I said, in the Wilderness his main enemies were probably wild animals and from time to time, on longer journeys, it might have been an Orc (probably badly armed), rarely a troll or something like that (who likely did not use any weapon). Let me also point out that I don't think the rangers actually fight that much: or, of course they do, but their main purpose is "protective", the mere presence of them has some effect. They monitor the area and therefore the enemies don't even come there. And only when, let's say, a band of goblins gets too close to human settlements, a larger group of Rangers appears and drives them off.

Yes, that's right. I always thought it was that way. And my opinion on the films is something best left asleep ;)

Well that remains a question, however I believe he may have as well kept it somewhere hidden (and cf. my post above). This is on the edge, though. But then, being so long so far ("in the lands of Rhun and Harad..."), one would really wonder what about the


Of course, then he'll be really happy, as he spent lots of time trying to find out whether any heirs still exist. But here we must once again grasp the logic of the tale. It simply could not have happened. Or, if even that happened and he were slain and the shards taken, there would have needed to be some other heir elsewhere, and the shards will be re-gained (very probably, the Orcs who would slay him will not even have the chance to return to... wherever they'd come from, or let's say, had that happened for example in Moria, then some Fellowship who will travel this way a long time after that, will find a strange skeleton with broken sword - the Orcs of course ignored some useless broken sword and took only what seemed valuable - and suddenly one of them, young Arasomething, would suddenly yell "Oh, it must be my relative"...).

Must we now?

I understand that of course this could not happen because then there would be no story, but I doubt that one could truly use this as an argument.

When we read the story we cannot include such things, that would make the story close to pointless. Just like the characthers within the book we must assume that there is a definite possibility that Aragorn could be killed in combat, so would he bring these shards with him abroad?

He clearly did it in his "homelands", but I would argue that the dangers where lesser in that area and he actually did not need much more than skill and a long knife (which is what Narsil more or less was) also there were other rangers around. Now when he goes abroad it is hard to say if he would risk carrying it to unknown lands, where he could loose it. I deffinitly think that he would not bring it to Gondor, simply because to many people knew what it was and he was not yet ready to assume the role of king.

Like I said earlier, I don't think Aragorn would have brought Narsil with him on his travels as it would have hindered him much more than helped him. Since I can't remember any mention of permanent dwelling-places of the Rangers, I've assumed that Narsil was kept in Rivendell because it was the closest thing Aragorn had to a home and therefore the natural place to keep your stuff. Yet, I can't see the Rangers living a fully nomadic existence either, with simple camps in wilderness as their only option. Perhaps they did have a home base somewhere in the old North Kingdom, to where they could withdraw or gather at need? If this was the case, the resoning of Ibrin makes perfect sense: Aragorn felt that the time had come for Narsil to be forged anew, and brought it with him to Rivendell for this explicit reason.

Well, we mustn't, but I think we should. It were not of that concern if we were talking about some random warrior, or Legolas, or Gimli, or even Boromir, but here is the heir of Isildur, which has its importance for the Third-Age Middle-Earth and the final conclusion of the battle with Sauron. I originally wanted to write "heir of the ancient line of Elros", however maybe the Isildur thing is more important in this particular case, although it's of far smaller importance overall. But to use very daring words, the fate of this line is so important for the fate of Arda, that it could not have gone otherwise. I.e. the line of Isildur simply could not have died out. No way. The other option would be also for Sauron to win, then it will maybe turn into a more "global" scale and you will have "dark Middle-Earth" and "bright Undying Lands", and that will be it. But the victory over Sauron (even though achieved by some Hobbits) needed the Return of the King as its part. For the tale of Arda overall on the other hand is important the line of the descendants of Lúthien and Eärendil and all these folks, simply the representatives of the Elf-Men union. In the case Aragorn died, the reunion of the two lines again as we see it in the case of Aragorn and Arwen wouldn't have been possible anymore (unless there was another heir, like I said above), so Arwen and Elrond, the last of the other descendants of Beren and Lúthien, would have left Middle-Earth and the "dark ME" scenario I outlined above would have taken place.
Or in other words: letting the descendants of Eärendil die out would be as much of a blow to the fate of Arda as if you, let's say, took away the Sun (although even that, in fact, in M-E isn't that much of a problem, as we know from the Silmarillion). Simply: Aragorn was not just "a fella like everyone else" - in a certain way. Now I am aware of the fact that this can be easily misinterpretated and I can already see someone protesting "don't let Aragorn show himself off over some 'ordinary' Boromir or whoever", but that's by no means how I meant it; rather let's say, it is similar to the tale of the Silmarils: they were also "just some stones", but the fate of Arda was bound in them. Analogically it's with the lineage of Eärendil.
I hope it's understandable what I had in mind.

Actually yes, I believe there was supposed to be something like a permanent settlement south of Rivendell. However someone else would have to supply what exactly it was - I think it's from HoME.

I agree with you, skip. It would seem most likely that the rangers would have a base where they could all meet, like the forbidden pool in Ithilien.

It has been mentioned, in this thread, that Narsil is a bunch of little fragments that Aragorn couldn't possibly carry around. I always pictured Narsil as being broken in two, it would certainly make a lot more sense that way. If Narsil was a bunch of broken pieces, why not call it "the blade that was shattered", or something to that extent. Do not underestimate the skill of it's forger, Telchar. When Beren broke Techar's knige, Angrist, it didn't shatter, it merely broke; I don't see how it would be any different with Sauron.

Sauron's "defeat" by the broken sword is an exceptional circumstance. If you're in the middle of a battle and a broken sword is what you have to hand then you use it. If one has any choice in the matter then a whole sword is preferable. If that were not true in Middle Earth then I can't imagine why the Elves bothered to reforge the sword that was broken.

Apart from Gondor and Rohan, Aragorn's wanderings were not limited to the wilderness. He spent time in the East and deep South "exploring the hearts of Men, both evil and good, and uncovering the plots and devices of the servants of Sauron" (LotR, Appendix A) These sound like tasks where a whole sword might come in handy.

As for his wilderness tasks, my take on these is precisely why I don't see Aragorn carrying Narsil along as matter of course on every journey he ever made. His tasks would have likely been arduous, involving long journeys where he would need to travel fast and therefore want to travel light. I can't see him taking something along that would not be of any use and might perhaps be a hindrance.

The idea that he needs to sit and look at the shards from time to time to remind him of who is doesn't strike me as something Book Aragorn would need. Movie Aragorn maybe. But I don't think that Book Aragorn needed that kind of constant reminder of his purpose. Nor do I think that it lessens the significance of an object if the owner doesn't carry it with him everywhere. I strikes me that this depiction of Aragorn's behaviour is Gollum like, or Ringbearer like perhaps, this idea that you need to have an object constantly near you and be reassured or fortified by its presence.

... or the author could avoid all of that and simply have him leave Narsil at home.

So you managed to list the linage of Aragorn and why it is important story wise, but I am afraid it won't help your case.
It does not change the fact that you cannot read the text of LotR knowing that Aragorn cannot die, simply because it would be the death of the story it self. It was only from the Tolkiens point of view that Aragorn could not die, for everybody else it have to be a possibility. You are cannot use an argument from a writers perspective to explain why people act in sertain ways within the text, it is quite simply wrong to do so.

If we accept this kind of argument it opens up a whole lot of trouble, one is that we would have to shut down every thread about why the charachters did sertain things and seek all answers in the stor-line.

About the Silmarils: I don't know why you use them as an example, yes the fate of Arda was bound to them, just like the fate of middle-earth was bound to Aragorn. The tale of Aragorn went well, but the one of the silmarils showed that it could end up both good and bad. . .only one of them made it to the sky.