Where is Aeglos?

[Sauron the White]

I tried to find this out but came up emtpy.
Does anyone know for sure what happened to the spear of Gil-galad, Aeglos or Aiglos, after he died in battle at the hands of Sauron at the end of the Second Age? Thanks.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I believe there is not anywhere evidence to prove the fate of Aiglos for sure. The possibilities are - buried somewhere on the slopes of Mount Doom, or recovered and buried together with Gil-Galad, or even found by someone else and carried away (but I don't believe it to be like that, and I can already see the mad fanfiction ideas, but I don't think a spear so closely associated with Gil-Galad would be carried away by anyone else than the Elves themselves, and they would probably bury it with Gil-Galad - actually, what happened with Gil-Galad himself? - or they would hang it over the fireplace in Rivendell or something).

[Mithalwen]

The elves bury their dead but somewhere it says that their physical bodies disintegrate swiftly - however the Dead Marshes are meant to contain the corpse of the slain from the battle though after so long it must have been some phantasm.

No doubt the elves would have made special arrangements for their leader's body if possible but I don't know if they would have buried him with his weapons - it seems unelvish. I must admit - and this is an impression rather than something I believe I could provide evidence for - that the fact that the ring was "as hot as a glede" when Isildur took it, suggested to me that Aeglos (and possibly also Gil-galad was more or less incinerated in the process of killing Sauron. Of course Narsil was merely broken but swords have special qualities in Middle Earth and are not usually largely constructed of wood. Also a spear would probably have been embedded in Sauron whereas a sword can be more of a slashing weapon.

It is a theory, but I wouldn't bet the farm.

[Gollumkrazy93]

I would say that it probably ended up in rivendell or the grey havens as a relic of elven history

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I must admit - and this is an impression rather than something I believe I could provide evidence for - that the fact that the ring was "as hot as a glede" when Isildur took it, suggested to me that Aeglos (and possibly also Gil-galad was more or less incinerated in the process of killing Sauron. Of course Narsil was merely broken but swords have special qualities in Middle Earth and are not usually largely constructed of wood. Also a spear would probably have been embedded in Sauron whereas a sword can be more of a slashing weapon.

Oh, I just remembered - there was other thing I wanted to say. In the narration of the Siege of Barad-Dur, we are told that:

Originally Posted by Council of Elrond

...for the Spear of Gil-galad and the Sword of Elendil, Aiglos and Narsil, none could withstand. I beheld the last combat on the slopes of Orodruin, where Gil-galad died, and Elendil fell, and Narsil broke beneath him; but Sauron himself was overthrown...

So, follow my thoughts: it is just an idea, but it may work. We are told about both Gil-Galad (1) and Elendil (2), and both about Aiglos (3) and Narsil (4). But in the last sentence we hear: Gil-Galad (1) died and Elendil (2) fell and Narsil broke (4) - and what about Aiglos? Nothing. That might imply, at least to me, that it had not the same fate as Narsil (i.e. did not break, was not destroyed or such), or, that it's fate is not known at all (so it is left out totally from the tale). And, actually, had Aiglos been hanging above the fireplace in Elrond's house, this would be a fantastic opportunity for Elrond to say "...and Aiglos we have here, look, this is it". So, I would actually think that if anywhere, Aiglos probably wasn't in Rivendell. Maybe in Grey Havens, or on Elostirion, if so. But well, it's just a theory, of course.

[McCaber]

The Grey Havens was Gil-Galad's home, so that would be a logical place to keep Aiglos, or so I think.

[davem]

The usual method of attack for a warrior with spear & shield (which are the arms we are told Gil-galad bore - no mention of a sword in the attack on Sauron btw) was to advance with the shield held forward to protect the body & the spear held over the top. I imagine G-g bearing down on Sauron & delivering the killing blow at a downward angle. Of course, he may have been part of a 'shield-wall' made up of a number of Elven warriors, which would have been the safest tactic - assuming there were enough of them around. I think that its most likely the spear head would have been destroyed, but the shaft would probably have survived. If so, I don't think it would have been left to rot - Elves were 'embalmers' & had a tendency to hoard stuff.....

[Rumil]

I always wondered if Aiglos was more of a lance, I could imagine Gil-Galad on a splendidly caparisoned charger weilding a rather special spear, probably with a bue and white (or silver/mithril) pennon. I guess you might say this theory would fall down if he couldn't get his horse up Mount Doom, but there you go.

On the other hand the spear could be dual-use, ie useful on horseback or dismounted. Certainly the Rohirrim seem to have done this and it was viable historically.

Cirdan or Elrond probably half-inched Aiglos if it survived when Big S went up in smoke, as they were the only two left with Isildur at the time (whose attention was taken by a certain shiny ring of course).

[Mithadan]

I always envisioned Aiglos as having a somewhat broad, leaf-shaped blade. As Rumil points out, the two "senior" Elves present at the time of Gil-Galad's death were Elrond and Cirdan. So if Aiglos survived and did not go up in smoke like blades used to attack the Ringwraiths, then Aiglos would have ended up in Rivendell or the Grey Havens.

But to where from there? An interesting issue is what comes of Elvish heirlooms when their owner is slain and they are later brought into the West by others. Aiglos and Glamdring leap to mind and there are likely uncounted other examples. The owners of such heirlooms have likely emerged from Mandos or will do so. What then becomes of these items? Does Gil-Galad confront Elrond or Cirdan and say "Here now, thanks for holding it for me, but it's mine now..." And what happens if there is a dispute about ownership?

[zxcvbn]

In the movies Aiglos is kept in Rivendell. In the Narsil scenes it can be seen displayed in the same room(or so I've heard from fans, I haven't watched the films for a white). I believe this is what may have happened in the books as well. Elves are not a warlike race, and usually weapons belonging to great kings or warriors were stored as heirlooms instead of being buried with their owner or used by others(eg.Tuor's axe, Aranruth, sword of Thingol etc.). Probably Gil-Galad's spear was kept in reverence of the fallen King.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Rumil

I always wondered if Aiglos was more of a lance, I could imagine Gil-Galad on a splendidly caparisoned charger weilding a rather special spear, probably with a bue and white (or silver/mithril) pennon. I guess you might say this theory would fall down if he couldn't get his horse up Mount Doom, but there you go.

If I remember correctly Elves don't use saddles, & if this is the case with G-G he wouldn't have been able to use a lance ('cos any impact would have thrown him over his horse's rear end, having nothing to hold him on) - you need a saddle &, specifically, stirrups to use one. Also, Anglo-Saxon warriors for instance even up to Hastings didn't fight on horseback, merely using then to get to the battleground & then fighting on foot (This is a major difference between the A-S & the Rohirrim) so you can't assume that just because a warrior rides into battle that he fights on horseback.

All that said, Tolkien does state that G-G had a 'lance' ('His sword was long, his lance was keen') but whether this 'lance' was Aiglos or not is another question.

[Gordis]

Actually, the only Elven horse we see up close - Asfaloth - did have a saddle and stirrups. Thus Glorfindel could use a lance in a normal way. Why not Gil-Galad?

But there is another thing I remember: each of the peoples of the Eldar were associated with specific weapons:

Morgoth's Ring; The later Quenta Silmarillion:
Other names in song and tale are given to these peoples. The Vanyar are the Blessed Elves, and the Spear Elves, The Elves of Air, the friends of the Gods, the Holy Elves and the Immortal, and the Children of Ingwe; they are the Fair Folk and the White
The Noldor are the Wise, and the Golden, the Valiant, the Sword-elves, the Elves of Earth, the Foes of Melkor, the Skilled of Hand, the Jewel-wrights, the Companions of Men, the Followers of Finwe
The Teleri are the Foam-riders, the Singers of the Shore, the Free, and the Swift, and the Arrow-Elves; they are the Elves of the Sea, the Ship-wrights, the Swanherders, the Gatherers of Pearl, the Blue Elves, the people of Olwe.

So, a spear is a weapon assciated with the Vanyar. Gil-Galad was at least partly Vanya (through Indis), maybe he had more Vanyar blood: because we don't know, I think (?), of what people were Angrod's and Orodreth's wives.
Anyway, it may well be that a Vanyarin lance had been brought to ME by Fingolfin and Finarfin's people and later passed as heirloom to Gil-Galad?

I agree with Mithadan: what remained of Aiglos would likely be sent to Valinor to await G-G's reincarnation.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Actually, the only Elven horse we see up close - Asfaloth - did have a saddle and stirrups. Thus Glorfindel could use a lance in a normal way. Why not Gil-Galad?

Its not clear whether Elves used saddles & stirrups generally - Asfaloth did, as you say, have one but it appears from other statements they did not:

A smaller and lighter horse, but restive and fiery, was brought to Legolas. Arod was his name. But Legolas asked them to take off saddle and rein. "I need them not," he said, and leaped lightly up, and to their wonder Arod was tame and willing beneath him, ...'Riders of Rrohan' TT.

"I did not know you rode bare-back, Gandalf," he said. 'You haven't a saddle or a bridle!" "I do not ride elf-fashion, except on Shadowfax," said Gandalf. "But Shadowfax will have no harness. 'The Palantir' TT

Of course, it may be that in battle, or at need, they would use them.

btw, we know Tolkien did a bit of re-thinking re the harness of Asfaloth - in the 1st edition text he wears a bit & bridle, whereas in the 2nd ed. its changed to a headstall.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by davem

Its not clear whether Elves used saddles & stirrups generally - Asfaloth did, as you say, have one but it appears from other statements they did not:

True- but Legolas was a Sinda, kin to Teleri "arrow-elves". And indeed he was first and foremost an archer.
Oropher's (and likely later Thranduil's) troops were generally not too well armed, thus suffered great losses in the Last Alliance. Maybe riding bare-back was another drawback preventing them to use lances and fight as mounted knights. I always thought of them as foot-soldiers.

"I did not know you rode bare-back, Gandalf," he said. 'You haven't a saddle or a bridle!" "I do not ride elf-fashion, except on Shadowfax," said Gandalf. "But Shadowfax will have no harness. 'The Palantir' TT

Even the remaining Noldor have adapted Sindarin language instead of Quenia: maybe they also adapted Sindarin customs as to riding (at least not in battle). Anyway Sindar and Silvan Elves far outnumbered the High Elves by the end of the TA, thus riding bareback may have been known as "Elf-fashion".

Originally Posted by davem

btw, we know Tolkien did a bit of re-thinking re the harness of Asfaloth - in the 1st edition text he wears a bit & bridle, whereas in the 2nd ed. its changed to a headstall.

Yes, I remember that (didn't he rewrite because a reader send him a letter questioning Asfaloth's bridle?").
Glorfindel may have had some Vanyar blood -wasn't he golden-haired like Vanyar?
But it is evident that Glorfindel meant to fight the nazgul on horseback as mounted knight, not on foot (Gandalf: "On foot even Glorfindel and Aragorn together could not withstand all the Nine at once."-LOTR, Many meetings). So Glorfindel set out from Rivendell prepared for battle: that may explain the use of the saddle etc. Curious though: we are not told what weapons Glorfindel carried: was there a sword or a lance maybe? Or - knowing that there was no surer way to destroy a weapon than sticking it into a nazgul, he went unarmed, relying only on his Power in the Unseen?

[davem]

Of course, the other aspect to take into account is culture & tradition:

Anglo-Saxons, unlike the Continental German tribes such as the Franks and the Goths, do not appear to have regularly fought on horseback. The poem about the battle of Maldon in AD 991 makes it clear that many of the warriors had ridden to the battlefield but then dismounted and fought on foot. Indeed Byrhtnoth, the leader of the Saxons, gave orders to drive away the horses so that there would be no thought of retreat. Only his own horse was kept so that he could use it to ride around the battlefield. When Byrhtnoth was killed and a large part of the army routed one of the fugitives took his horse to speed his escape. Another account, albeit even later, is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 1055. This records how the Herefordshire fyrd, in battle with the Welsh, fled before a single spear was thrown because they had been ordered to fight on horseback, contrary to their custom (Anglos contra morem in equis pugnare jussit). There are occasional references in Anglo-Saxon histories to mounted forces, such as the Northumbrian king Ecgfrith's expedition of horsemen (equitatui) sent against the Picts which is mentioned in the biography of Bishop Wilfrid. However, these do not make clear whether the force fought mounted or dismounted. 'Equitates' is the general Latin term for mounted soldiers as opposed to the word 'ala' which is used only of cavalry. Underwood: Anglo-Saxon Weapons and Warfare

We don't know whether 'Elvish' battle tactics in all periods/situations included fighting on horseback - Anglo-Saxon warriors could have learned mounted combat (like the Rohirrim), but that simply 'wasn't their style'. It may be that at the time of the Last Alliance the Elves didn't fight on horseback - & probably if they didn't use saddles they wouldn't have - Shadowfax may have been able to keep Gandalf on his back in any circumstances but I get the sense that Shadowfax is a pretty unique horse. A bareback cavalry charge is a recipe for disaster. In fact, mounted combat of any kind is incredibly difficult without saddle & stirrups. And let's not ignore the possibility that the Elves may not have wanted horses on the battlefield.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Rumil

I always wondered if Aiglos was more of a lance, I could imagine Gil-Galad on a splendidly caparisoned charger weilding a rather special spear, probably with a bue and white (or silver/mithril) pennon. I guess you might say this theory would fall down if he couldn't get his horse up Mount Doom, but there you go.

On the other hand the spear could be dual-use, ie useful on horseback or dismounted. Certainly the Rohirrim seem to have done this and it was viable historically.

Cirdan or Elrond probably half-inched Aiglos if it survived when Big S went up in smoke, as they were the only two left with Isildur at the time (whose attention was taken by a certain shiny ring of course).

Are you talking about a lance in the traditional manner, the kind you connect with medieval turnaments?

That would be a most unpractical weapon and I have a hard time seing it becoming so renowned as the Aiglos, a "normal" spear would have more uses and be better in single combat.

Anyways, the fact that we hear nothing of the faith of Aiglos seem to point towards it being lost during the battle, even a mighty weapon like Aiglos could splintered or bent. In this battle there are three major "weapons" Aiglos, Narsil and The One Ring, we are told exactly the history of Narsil and The Ring so it would be weird if Aiglos "survived" the battle and we were told nothing about it.

[davem]

Just looking into this on wikipedia, & found a statement that 'recent evidence suggests' lances could be effective without the use of stirrups - but doesn't give any citations, so take it or leave it as you will. Perhaps it depends on the type of saddle used - obviously you'd need to be able to grip the horse with your thighs, or maybe have a type of saddle that held you in place, or you'd risk coming a cropper every time you struck something solid. Of course, you could thrust with a spear even riding bareback, but you wouldn't have the same momentum, so I suspect that we aren't talking about a 'classic' cavalry charge, but more like charging to the fight & thrusting with the spear.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by davem

A bareback cavalry charge is a recipe for disaster. In fact, mounted combat of any kind is incredibly difficult without saddle & stirrups.

I was thinking the same thing. Having been involved with Civil War Reenacting, I've seen plenty of people on horseback enter into a staged "battle" and still have problems staying on the horse when "combat" was engaged -- and they weren't fighting with high-impact weapons like a lance. Lack of experience of course can account for this, but it seems to me that even the greatest Elven rapport between man and beast can't make up for the laws of physics when a collision occurs. I'm more inclined to think that the Elves, having such strong affinity toward other creatures, would not have been inclined to take many of their horses into battle, unless the animal was willing, and in that willing to suffer whatever was needed for the protection of itself and its rider -- including such things as saddles and barding. The only other culture I can think of that did fight from horseback without saddles were certain Native Americans, and to the best of my knowledge, they fought that way largely by using projectile or thrown weapons in a running attack, which would allow them to stay on their mounts because there would be no impact to push them off.

That said, I seem to recall a reference somewhere to the fact that Gil-galad was burned to death by Sauron. If that was so, and he was holding Aiglos at the time, it's likely that not much of it really survived. Perhaps the point, which may be kept somewhere, likely with Elrond or Cirdan. I tend to think that it did not survive intact. Tolkien seems to have a fondness for the symbolism of the breaking of the weapon when a noted character falls in battle. Even the sword of the Balrog of Moria was broken when its fall was imminent. Glamdring probably survived only because he know Gandalf was coming back very soon and would have need of it.

[skip spence]

Regarding elves fighting on horseback an episode with Beren, Luthien and two sons of Feanor (was it Curufin and Celegorm?) might offer some clues. I've no access to an English version of Silmarillion now so I can't offer any quotes but this is how I remember the episode (please correct me if I'm wrong):

By chance, the brothers find Beren & Luthien strolling in the woods and one of them rides them down in full speed to grab Luthien, sweeping her up on his horse. I don't remember if a saddle is mentioned, and know next to nothing about horseback riding, but this strikes me as impossible to pull of without reins, stirrups and a saddle to hold on to. Beren then leaps up and grabs the Feanorian, and they tumble down on the ground. At this point the other brother comes charging in with spear in hand, but Huan saves Beren life by frightening the hourse.

So at least some elves rode with saddles and were accomplished fighting on horseback. Mind you, this doesn't prove the elves had cavalry - these fellows might have been on a hunting trip - but I do think it proves some elves rode with saddles etc.

[Gordis]

skip spence
You are quite right: the saddle IS mentioned:

Then Celegorm turned his horse, and spurred it upon Beren, purposing to ride him down; but Curufin swerving stooped and lifted Lúthien to his saddle, for he was a strong and cunning horseman.

[davem]

"Now his wrath (Gwindor's, that is) was kindled to madness, and he leapt forth on horseback, and many riders with him: and they pursued the heralds and slew them, and drove deep on into the host."

-The Silmarillion, Chapter 20

Seems to imply a cavalry charge - specifically the classic 'wedge', as they 'drove deep' into the enemy. But does it? Possibly the reason they managed to 'drive deep' was not that they had trained cavalry but that the enemy simply weren't expecting Elves to charge into them on horseback at all - they didn't know how to respond, & just ran away. An army that expects cavalry to be used by their opponents usually has plans in place to deal with it.

Another thing to take into account is that cavalry have to be trained - its not just a matter of sticking a bunch of guys on horseback & sending them charging off in the general direction of the enemy. You also need plenty of horses & fodder. Aristocratic Elves had horses as we've seen, but we don't know if they fought on horseback - Fingolfin rode to Angband to challenge Morgoth, but he dismounted & fought him on foot, & generally we hear of Elven armies 'marching up' to battle. Its as much a matter of what means the Elves had to hand (how many horses did they have access to?) & what tactics they had developed. Finally, you can't ignore the Elves 'embalming' tendencies & that generally speaking innovation was anathema to them. If traditionally they had fought on foot then there's very little likelihood that they would decide to try something new.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by davem

Seems to imply a cavalry charge - specifically the classic 'wedge', as they 'drove deep' into the enemy. But does it? Possibly the reason they managed to 'drive deep' was not that they had trained cavalry but that the enemy simply weren't expecting Elves to charge into them on horseback at all - they didn't know how to respond, & just ran away. An army that expects cavalry to be used by their opponents usually has plans in place to deal with it.

Another thing to take into account is that cavalry have to be trained - its not just a matter of sticking a bunch of guys on horseback & sending them charging off in the general direction of the enemy. You also need plenty of horses & fodder. Aristocratic Elves had horses as we've seen, but we don't know if they fought on horseback - Fingolfin rode to Angband to challenge Morgoth, but he dismounted & fought him on foot, & generally we hear of Elven armies 'marching up' to battle. Its as much a matter of what means the Elves had to hand (how many horses did they have access to?) & what tactics they had developed. Finally, you can't ignore the Elves 'embalming' tendencies & that generally speaking innovation was anathema to them. If traditionally they had fought on foot then there's very little likelihood that they would decide to try something new.

I find this discussion very facinating and want to chip in my self, but should we not make a seperate thread for this subject of horseback ridding?

[Mithalwen]

Tolkien said - I think in one of the letters - in response to someone querying Glorfindel's use of a saddle that a trick cyclist could ride a normal bicycle.

Having ridden a lot in my youth, I have to say that while I am sure that Legolas had no need of the saddle and rein, and that an elf is a less cumbersome burden than any human to a horse, itmust be much more comfortable for both parties to use a well fitting saddle especially if any baggage or equipment is to be carried. While Glorfindel no doubt travelled light and needed little more than a waterbottle, flask of miruvor, lembas and a hoof pick ..these are still more conveniently carried in a saddlebag.

I always think it must have been a bit of a nuisance for the riders to get lumbered with an extra saddle but at least Legolas had the excuse of Gimli.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Fingon maintained a force of mounted archers, the ones who drove the half-grown Glaurung back to Angband. Of course, that doesn't address the saddle question, since some Native Americans, especially the Comanche, were superb bareback archers.

[davem]

There are a couple of mentions of 'cavalry' in the Sil:

Fingolfin and Fingon his son held Hithlum, and the most part of Fingolfin's folk dwelt in Mithrim about the shores of the great lake; to Fingon was assigned Dor-lomin, that lay to the west of the Mountains of Mithrim. But their chief fortress was at Eithel Sirion in the east of Ered Wethrin, whence they kept watch upon Ard-galen; and their cavalry rode upon that plain even to the shadow of Thangorodrim, for from few their horses had increased swiftly, and the grass of Ard-galen was rich and green. Of those horses many of the sires came from Valinor, and they were given to Fingolfin by Maedhros in atonement of his losses, for they had been carried by ship to Losgar.

Between the arms of Gelion was the ward of Maglor, and here in one place the hills failed altogether; there it was that the Orcs came into East Beleriand before the Third Battle. Therefore the Noldor held strength of cavalry in the plains at that place; and the people of Caranthir fortified the mountains to the east of Maglor's Gap

So, there was 'cavalry', but are we talking heavy cavalry, with heavily armoured 'knights' replete with lances, or light cavalry used for skirmishing & hit & run raids? And was this cavalry a major part of their fighting force?

[Eönwë]

The question of the horseriding is very interesting, however, in connecting to McCaber's statement:

Originally Posted by McCaber

The Grey Havens was Gil-Galad's home, so that would be a logical place to keep Aiglos, or so I think.

I think that if Aeglos/Aiglos survived, Cirdan would have it. After all, he is known to keep precious things (even though he did give one away *cough*Gandalf*cough*) and stay behind for people. He is probably the most trustworthy elf, so naturally it would go to him. Plus, Gl-Galad came from there anyway.

[ArathornJax]

Is it possible that Aeglos is more a lance/spear along the lines of the Normans? I have several books on this but found a nice entry at TheHistory.Net: British Heritage Magazine Online. It says:

Quote:
"The basic weapon of the Norman cavalry and infantry was a spear with a leaf-shaped head of iron and a wooden haft, usually of ash. The only difference visible in contemporary illustrations between infantry and cavalry spears is that infantry spears sometimes appear thicker in the haft. Both are often shown with a horizontal crossbar beneath the head, intended to prevent excessive penetration. This feature is also found on earlier Saxon and Carolingian weapons. Massed infantry could probably form a hedge of spears as protection against cavalry as they did later in the 12th century, the spear points angled forward, the haft ends resting on the ground. But this is not the usual way in which spears were used. In contemporary illustrations they are more frequently shown held above the head and wielded in a downward stabbing movement, the same technique being used against both cavalry and infantry. Using this technique the spear could be thrown when required and this would explain why in most manuscript illustrations of the 11th and 12th centuries spears would appear to be of lightweight construction.

The cavalry spear, known to us as the lance, was used in much the same way, either at arm's length, usually overarm, or couched under the arm to give greater rigidity to the weapon and force to the attack. When couched the spear would be crossed over the horse's neck right to left where it could be balanced, a technique that had the added advantage that opponents approached each other left side to left side and it was on the left side that they had the added protection of their shield. But even this added protection was not always sufficient."

The link for the article is: http://www.historynet.com/magazines/...tml?page=1&c=y

In this model Aeglos could have been not a heavy lance of the high Middle Ages, but a different type of spear more suited for the armor and weapons of the day. For me this makes a much better sense of what type of spear Aeglos was and of how GG may have used the spear both on horseback and on foot. The Normans also provide some details on the calvary tactics used by the Elves in the First Age (perhaps).

As far as where Aeglos is, by cannon we don't know. I would say the the Elves of Lindon would have returned it to Cirdan who then either kept it with him or sent it over the sea to the West.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by ArathornJax

Normans

The only thing is, Tolkien didn't like the Normans. Remember who they killed?

But other than that sounds like a good idea, which probably would have worked.

[davem]

There's an interesting description of combat using a spear in Egil's Saga:

Thorolf was thus armed. He had a shield ample and stout, a right strong helmet on his head; he was girded with the sword that he called Long, a weapon large and good. In his hand he had a spear, whereof the feather-formed blade was two ells long, ending in a four-edged spike; the blade was broad above, the socket both long and thick. The shaft stood just high enough for the hand to grasp the socket, and was remarkably thick. The socket fitted with iron prong on the shaft, which was also wound round with iron. Such weapons were called mail-piercers.....

Then Thorolf became so furious that he cast his shield on his back, and, grasping his spear with both hands, bounded forward dealing cut and thrust on either side. Men sprang away from him both ways, but he slew many. Thus he cleared the way forward to earl Hring's standard, and then nothing could stop him. He slew the man who bore the earl's standard, and cut down the standard-pole. After that he lunged with his spear at the earl's breast, driving it right through mail-coat and body, so that it came out at the shoulders; and he lifted him up on the spear over his head, and planted the butt-end in the ground. There on the weapon the earl breathed out his life in sight of all, both friends and foes. Then Thorolf drew his sword and dealt blows on either side, his men also charging. Many Britons and Scots fell, but some turned and fled.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by davem

There's an interesting description of combat using a spear in Egil's Saga:

The problems with the Sagas is that in many ways you cannot trust them. . .

[davem]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

The problems with the Sagas is that in many ways you cannot trust them. . .

Well, not in terms of historical accuracy, no, but they were clearly a major influence on Tolkien. They shaped his concept of M-e & possibly his views on combat. The world of the Silmarillion is very much the world of the Sagas. And Thorolf's dispatching of Hring is less 'fantastical' than Hurin's slaying 70 Trolls.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by davem

Thorolf's dispatching of Hring is less 'fantastical' than Hurin's slaying 70 Trolls.

Well, we don't actually know that Húrin killed 70 trolls. We know he killed 70 enemies including trolls, but it doesn't go into detail (there was a thread on this some time ago, I'll see if I can find it).
Anyway, I like to think that he didkill 70 trolls. But all I'm saying is that the way words are ordered make a difference. Anyway, What you say about ME being a land full of saga-like stories is true.

edit: Well, the thread wasn't actually about about that, but it was discussed here

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Well, we don't actually know that Húrin killed 70 trolls. We know he killed 70 enemies including trolls, but it doesn't go into detail (there was a thread on this some time ago, I'll see if I can find it).
Anyway, I like to think that he didkill 70 trolls. But all I'm saying is that the way words are ordered make a difference. Anyway, What you say about ME being a land full of saga-like stories is true.

edit: Well, the thread wasn't actually about about that, but it was discussed here

And it would not matter if it was trolls or not unless that in the ranks of Angband there was a creature that died when you looked sternly at it, then Hurin's achievment would seem less fantastical.

[ArathornJax]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

The only thing is, Tolkien didn't like the Normans. Remember who they killed?

But other than that sounds like a good idea, which probably would have worked.

Some other sites that show that this was not just a Norman tactic but an Anglo-Saxon and Viking one also:

http://www.regia.org/spear.htm
http://wychwood.wikidot.com/fighting-spear-vik (interesting training notes)
http://books.google.com/books?id=kjO...hl=en#PPA22,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=fXr...hl=en#PPA13,M1

http://www.stavacademy.co.uk/mimir/europeanarms.htm


From the Battle of Maldon we get this:

Advanced again to fierce battle, weapons raised up, shields to defense, and towards these warriors they stepped. Resolute they approached Earl to the lowest Yeoman: each of them intent on harm for the enemy. Sent then a sea-warrior a spear of southern make that wounded the warrior lord. He thrust then with his shield such that the spear shaft burst, and that spear-head shattered as it sprang in reply. Enraged became that warrior: with anger he stabbed that proud Viking who had given him that wound. Experienced was that warrior; he threw his spear forward through the warrior's neck, his hand guiding so that he this ravager's life would fatally pierce. Then he with another stab speedily pierced the ravager so that the chainmail coat broke: this man had a breast wound cut through the linked rings; through his heart stuck a deadly spear. The Earl was the better pleased: laughed then this great man of spirit, thanking the Creator for the day's work which the Lord had given him. And so then another warrior a spear from the other side flew out of hand, which deeply struck through the noble Aethelred's retainer. To him by his side stood a young man not fully grown, a youth on the battlefield, who valiantly pulled out of this warrior the bloody spear, Wulfstan's child, Wulfmaer the younger; and so with blinding speed came the shaft in reply. The spear penetrated, for that who on the Earth now lay among his people, the one who had sorely pierced. Went then armed a man to this Earl; he desirous of this warrior's belongings to take off with, booty and rings and an ornamental sword. Then Byrhtnoth drew his sword from its sheath broad and bright of blade, and then struck the man's coat of mail. But too soon he was prevented by a certain sea-scavenger, and then the Earl's arm was wounded. Fall then to the ground with his gold-hilted sword: his grip unable to hold the heavy sword, or wield the weapon.

I've included it to give credence to how the spear was used in the day.

(Listen to it in Old English and you can also listen to other Anglo Saxon texts in Old English http://fred.wheatonma.edu/wordpressm...lines-100-229/)

The link to hear it in Old English is for fun and for those who may be students of the language.

In the fourth link on the Anglo-Saxon use of the spear as a weapon (which is used very similar to the Normans in hand to hand combat) the shaft heads found in the Thames point to me the fact that the armored head of Aeglos probably survived the burning by Sauron (if GG still held the spear) but the shaft probably did not. If GG had dropped it, then it is quite possible that the entire spear was preserved.

For me, the Viking/Anglo-Saxon/Norman period's use of the spear shows to me how GG used the spear and probably how the spear was used by elves in general. The spear could have been a very common weapon for all Elvish warriors and we know from Tolkien's works that Elvish spearmen were used and feared.

[Eönwë]

Sorry, ArathornJax , you don't have to be so protective. I never once doubted you, I was merely making a point.

So that's the famous Regia Anglorum site.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by ArathornJax

For me, the Viking/Anglo-Saxon/Norman period's use of the spear shows to me how GG used the spear and probably how the spear was used by elves in general. The spear could have been a very common weapon for all Elvish warriors and we know from Tolkien's works that Elvish spearmen were used and feared.

hmmm I would think that the elves, being first born and all, would have come up with a better use of the spear. . .Especially if the Elvish spearmen was feared as I have never heard of any dread sorrounding Viking/Anglo-Saxon/Norman spearmen in particular.

"Alas, holy Patrick! unavailing your orisons—.
the Vikings with axes. are hacking your oratories"

About Aiglos, I still think that even if Gil-Galad dropped it and it was not destroyed by Sauron, it would have been stomped to smithereens. Even mighty things of Elven craft can break. Also it would make no sence if this weapon did indeed survive and we heard nothing of it.

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

About Aiglos, I still think that even if Gil-Galad dropped it and it was not destroyed by Sauron, it would have been stomped to smithereens.

I remember reading somewhere that Elrond was the standard bearer to Gil-Galad, so of course he would do everything that he could to save the remnents of his commander. If Elrond took the shards of Narsil, which by the way was smashed to smithereens, then he would certainly take Aiglos, and whatever else he could that belonged to Gil-Galad.