Aragorn the Ranger

Aragorn is a Dunedain Ranger. If he is supposed to be really skilled with his bow, why is he never seen using it in battle? I can't remember if he ever used it in the books, but he NEVER used it to his advantage in the movie battles. In the movies, it just seemed a little unrealistic for a part leather and mail clad ranger cutting down Orcs left and right.

What do you think?

[Boromir88]

I don't know about any other time, but during the time frame of the Lord of the Rings, Aragorn does not have a bow. He carries the shards of Narsil, and while in Rivendell (before the Fellowship sets off) it is reforged and renamed Anduril. And I'm fairly sure that is his only weapon (no knife, nor no bow as the movies show).

It's typical of movies to 'hollywoodize' things and try to make it a little more exciting. So, as you'll see in most movies that show Orcs as soldiers, the Orcs are simply canon fodder...or soldiers that are easily dispatched by the 'heroes.' You'll typically see in movies our heroes easily kill and fight there way through a seemingly endless horde of this canon fodder. Hence, why Aragorn (in the movies) probably goes charging in with a sword, so he can hack up them nasty orcses. I think you get a different impression of the Orcs in the books (or at least in LOTR).

Welcome to the Barrowdowns Feredir, enjoy.

[The Fuzz]

I do recall Aragorn using his bow during the movie Fellowship of the Ring. When they were in Moria, holding the door, Aragorn and Legolas both are using their bows.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

It's typical of movies to 'hollywoodize' things and try to make it a little more exciting. So, as you'll see in most movies that show Orcs as soldiers, the Orcs are simply canon fodder...or soldiers that are easily dispatched by the 'heroes.' You'll typically see in movies our heroes easily kill and fight there way through a seemingly endless horde of this canon fodder. Hence, why Aragorn (in the movies) probably goes charging in with a sword, so he can hack up them nasty orcses. I think you get a different impression of the Orcs in the books (or at least in LOTR).

Well said!

[Mithalwen]

The bow was an invention of the films but in the circumstances it is a not unreasonable one. I am far from being a survival expert but I would be very suprised if a broken sword, no matter how noble the lineage,is the best equipment for surviving in the wild - which is what the rangers did most of the time. I am not the greatest fan of the film (nor their greatest critic) but though aragorn bringing out Narsil as proof is very dramatic it isn't practical so the idea of it being preserved at Rivendell (like the other heirlooms) is not PJ's greatest crime against the canon.

I am sure that Aragorn would have at least carried a hunting knife in the wild - to make shelter, skin fish etc. Maybe a knife for defense but not fuly "tooled up " which would be an encumbrance.

Bear in mind that there is a difference between shooting for the pot and military archery. As a ranger I am sure Aragorn could have bagged a deer as shown but a good longbowman (human not elf!) would be expected to fire up to 20 aimed shots a minute. Aragaorn was probably more effective as a Swordsman.

[Boromir88]

I am sure that Aragorn would have at least carried a hunting knife in the wild - to make shelter, skin fish etc. Maybe a knife for defense but not fuly "tooled up " which would be an encumbrance.

Come on Mith, we all know Arwen packs Aragorn's lunch for him, so he has no need for a bow or knife.

[Mithalwen]

Oh don't shatter my illusions Boro - the chieftain of the Dunedain of the North dependent on a packed lunch..... less a ranger more a day-tripper !!!

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I am sure that Aragorn would have at least carried a hunting knife in the wild - to make shelter, skin fish etc. Maybe a knife for defense but not fuly "tooled up " which would be an encumbrance.

Heh. I remember watching the end of Fellowship of the Ring, and snickering to myself as Aragorn said, "We travel light" or some such thing, as he secures yet another weapon...Not a particularly good match of word and deed there.

Now that I've got that particular thought out of my system, back to the initial topic.

This thread has made me realize something: I never once pictured Aragorn with a bow, most likely because it was never expressly mentioned. I always thought of the title "Ranger" to be more involved with the "park ranger" sort of connotation: someone who patrols the wilderness with the goals of safety and preservation in mind, as opposed to a reference to the type of weapons carried. I guess this was influenced by the Rangers being referred to as a group.

As to the hunting thing...I agree that hunting with a bow makes far more sense than attempting to do so with a sword (particularly a broken one, ) or a knife.

I don't think he would use traps. I think that perhaps other Men might (Breelanders, perhaps? They seem a bit rougher around the edges, for some reason). However, Aragorn is one of the Rangers, a word I already associate with nobility, honor and kindness, and he was also raised among the Elves who would doubtless frown upon the concept of traps.

A snare, I could see, as long as it didn't cause the caught animal any pain.

I would think that a Ranger would really need to live, and travel, light. The more stuff you haul around with you, the more tired you get, and you'll also make more noise. A bow (particularly a longbow, which you'd need for hunting...or at least for hunting large game) and arrows would probably just get in the way (and it does! In one scene of the FOTR EE, Aragorn's bow actually does hit the camera as Viggo turns a corner). For that reason, I think that he probably hunted more with humane snares. Perhaps he did carry a small amount of preserved meat of some kind along with him, in case of emergency. After all, one man doesn't really need that much to eat. He'd have no need to fell a buck or a bear.

Foraging also is a pretty plausible option. There are other ways for Aragorn to find food besides hunting, though I'm not suggesting he was entirely vegetarian.

One last thing:

Originally Posted by lindale

Did Faramir and Co., upon meeting Frodo and Sam, really use bows to ambush the other Men, the men under Sauron? If they did, I think it's safe to assume that their kinsmen in the North also used bows, although not mainly for war

Yes, they did! It's mentioned towards the end of "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit":

Originally Posted by The Two Towers

Four tall men stood there. Two had spears in their hands with broad bright heads. Two had great bows, almost of their own height, and great quivers of long green-feathered arrows. All had swords at their sides...

So not only did they use bows, but they also apparantly run about armed to the teeth, the way we see Movie!Aragorn. It makes sense, though, since they're actually ready for (and expecting) battle, which I don't think Aragorn actively was. Protecting the Shire probably requires some fighting, but not the hard battle seen later in the story.

Later in the chapter, Sam observes that "arrows were thick in the air" and even sees one of the red-clad men meet his death that way. So yes, the rangers of Ithilien did fight with bows.

[Galendor]

As I read it, Middle Earth was a relatively undisturbed place with true wilderness. Much of this environemnt, such as the lands between Hobbiton and Rivendell, seems to be composed of a patchwork of forests, streams, rivers, and natural open fields. In such a landscape there would be lush and diverse wild animals and plants.

I don't think Strider in the context of the books would choose to hunt larger game requiring a bow, such as deer or bear. These animals have a lot of meat, more than can be used by a small party before it spoils. So I imagine he would primarily hunt small game, such as rabbits, squirrels, and large birds such as pheasants or grouse. I imagine such animals were far more abundant and less wary in the wilds of Middle Earth than we can imagine nowadays, and Strider as a Ranger new their ways and habits very well. So I think he could have hunted them with a simple sling (strap of leather with a pouch for holding a stone), or even caught them by hand (fat rabbit is no match for stealthy Ranger). It isn't hard to imagine he was a very skilled shot with a sling. He may have hunted such small game while traveling, in a catch-as-can fashion and taking advantage of opportunities that presented themselves. Tolkien didn't usually elaborate on such smaller concerns of daily necessities.

So I imagine small game could be "caught" in little time by Strider, carrying only a small sling in his pocket. He could also have a hook and line for catching what must have been abundant and unwary fish (bass, trout) in ponds and streams. Also it is clear in the books that Strider knew much herb-lore, and so I think he also was adept at collecting edible leaves, fruits, and roots from plants that would be good for eating.

So I don't think Strider needed or carried a bow in his general ranging duties. But feeding a small band of hungry hobbits was probably tough even for him!

[Nazgûl-king]

I always thought Aragorn had a bow and was a pretty good archer, of course I saw the movies first so that might have influenced that but… anyway a bow would have been usful for hunting.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I'd say it this way: What we know for sure is that Aragorn did not have the bow after he left Rivendell. Whether he had it when he met the Hobbits can be a matter of speculation, based on the arguments mentioned above. The main of the "pros" would be that he speaks about hunting, main of the "cons" is that we are never told he had a bow and when the hobbits meet him at the Prancing Pony, and he is with them in their room, he definitely has only a sword (and even broken). Now where would he put the bow meanwhile? Definitely he would not leave it in the common room. Unless he had another room rented, or some secret stash where he kept his bow, I would conclude that he didn't have any.

Concerning the period after Rivendell, this makes it pretty clear:

Originally Posted by The Ring Goes South

The Company took little gear of war, for their hope was in secrecy not in battle. Aragorn had Andúril but no other weapon.

[Gwathagor]

Aragorn might have had a bow with him prior to the Ring Goes South, before the Nine Walkers leave Rivendell. Thereafter, it would have been an unnecessary encumbrance. Bow-hunting would have taken time which the Company did not have.

Regardless, I am inclined to think that Aragorn could have gotten along just fine without a bow. Foraging, and perhaps laying the occasional trap, would have been more practical for a wandering Ranger who was constantly on the move. Also, it is part of his nature as a heroic character to carry and wield no other weapon but his ancestral blade.

However, I think Gandalf does describe Aragorn as not only a great traveler, but a great hunter as well. This could mean either that he was good at killing wild animals, or that he was simply good at tracking. The latter makes sense, as Gandalf relies heavily on Aragorn in the tracking and eventual capture of Gollum. I'm sure that Aragorn would have been a good wild-animal-killler in any case, but if Gandalf was choosing to specifically describe him as such, then Aragorn almost certainly carried a bow.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

My conclusion is that Aragorn usually carried and used a bow. However, with the Fellowship he did not bear it, and in my personal opinion (as explained above) before in Bree, for reasons unknown, he also did not have it with him.