Why was Strider lugging around a Broken Sword???
David Flood
Fellowship of the Ring" -
Just *why* was Strider/Aragorn, who told the Hobbits incessantly about the
dangers of the lands between the Shire and Rivendell, wearing a useless
sword while travelling in those same lands? ("and they saw that the blade
was indeed broken a foot below the hilt", 'Strider' pp188, tFotR).
A few points on this; not only were the broken shards of Narsil of no use
against the Nazgul or anyone else (i.e. the 'flame' of this sword had to
later be rekindled in Rivendell in being re-forged), but as Elendil's sword,
it was one of the most important heirlooms of the Dunedain, maybe even the
most important after the Ring of Barahir and the original Star of Elendil,
as a symbol of the High King of the Numenorean Exiles...
Isildur thought Narsil important enough to send two of his warriors to
bring it to safety at the Gladden Fields, so why was Aragorn wandering
around Arnor by himself with this priceless heirloom? What good did it do
him, the Heir of Elendil, supposedly travelling incognito as a 'Ranger', to
carry it? If the Chieftains of the North made a habit of this, it would
probably account for the fact that so many of them seemed to die young and
violently ;-)
Surely he should have worn some serviceable, if less valuable weapon, if
Eriador was so dangerous, and doubly so when he heard from Gildor's people
that the Black Riders (whom he knew to be Nazgul) were about? How could
this "hardiest of Men" have been so foolhardy to risk himself, his line and
one of the Exiles' greatest treasures?
just a thought...
Daithi
Phil Edwards
David Flood <nospam-...@corpoman.buyandsell.ie> wrote:
> Just *why* was Strider/Aragorn, who told the Hobbits incessantly about the
> dangers of the lands between the Shire and Rivendell, wearing a useless
> sword while travelling in those same lands? ("and they saw that the blade
> was indeed broken a foot below the hilt", 'Strider' pp188, tFotR).
I was wondering this just last night, rereading those chapters. I'm glad
it's not just me.
How the &#!% was he supposed to defend himself? Using what? His personal
long-stemmed curiously-carved smoking pipe? Maybe Numenorean tobacco is
fatal to orcs.
Phil
--
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com | pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more capable fools.
Frannie
wrote:
>
>David Flood <nospam-...@corpoman.buyandsell.ie> wrote:
>> Just *why* was Strider/Aragorn, who told the Hobbits incessantly about the
>> dangers of the lands between the Shire and Rivendell, wearing a useless
>> sword while travelling in those same lands? ("and they saw that the blade
>> was indeed broken a foot below the hilt", 'Strider' pp188, tFotR).
>
>I was wondering this just last night, rereading those chapters. I'm glad
>it's not just me.
>
>How the &#!% was he supposed to defend himself? Using what? His personal
>long-stemmed curiously-carved smoking pipe? Maybe Numenorean tobacco is
>fatal to orcs.
>
>
>Phil
my hubby says..keep reading!
Ron Christian
David Flood <nospam-...@corpoman.buyandsell.ie> wrote:
>This one has bothered me for the last ten years, every time I re-read "The
>Fellowship of the Ring" -
>
>Just *why* was Strider/Aragorn, who told the Hobbits incessantly about the
>dangers of the lands between the Shire and Rivendell, wearing a useless
>sword while travelling in those same lands? ("and they saw that the blade
>was indeed broken a foot below the hilt", 'Strider' pp188, tFotR).
Good question.
>[...]
>Surely he should have worn some serviceable, if less valuable weapon, if
>Eriador was so dangerous, and doubly so when he heard from Gildor's people
>that the Black Riders (whom he knew to be Nazgul) were about? How could
>this "hardiest of Men" have been so foolhardy to risk himself, his line and
>one of the Exiles' greatest treasures?
>
>just a thought...
I don't have the book in front of me, but it seems to me that their goal
was to go directly to Rivendell, and that the first thing he did with the
weapon once he got there was have it reforged. I think he had it on him
in Bree because the portents argued that it was finally time for Narsil
to be reforged. So, he was either already on the way to Rivendell when
he was redirected to Frodo's quest, or he looked at the situation and
decided to take the sword with him.
I agree, however, that he should have had another weapon with him.
Firebrands make for cool movie trailers, but I don't think they're
that practical in a fight. :-)
Someone more scholarly than I will no-doubt point out the exact paragraph
in the Letters that contradicts this. :-)
Ron
--
[www.europa.com/~ronc]
"Denying minorities their God-given right to vote is a terrible, terrible
crime. Unless they're Cuban immigrants, of course."
-- Rev. Jessie Jackson (paraphrased)
John Bytheway
Phil Edwards <pedw...@dmapub.dma.org> wrote in message
news:980j5n$igr$1...@dmapub.dma.org...
> How the &#!% was he supposed to defend himself? Using what? His personal
> long-stemmed curiously-carved smoking pipe? Maybe Numenorean tobacco is
> fatal to orcs.
Clearly, defense was not necessary. He was pretty good at hiding out
anyway, and when faced with an enemy he could of course simply Stride away,
or invoke the names of a few powerful friends (e.g. Elrond), or perhaps
offer to heal their wounds in return for his life. At the worst he could
pull his sword out 10 inches and say "Don't think I don't know how to use
this thing" in a threatening voice.
This all changed when he was being accompanied by loud, slow, impolite
companions, and he decided it was high time he could hold his own in a
fight.
John
David Flood
news:3aa405b6$1...@news.nwlink.com...
> In article <97u9o3$t4m$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> David Flood <nospam-...@corpoman.buyandsell.ie> wrote:
> I don't have the book in front of me, but it seems to me that their goal
> was to go directly to Rivendell, and that the first thing he did with the
> weapon once he got there was have it reforged. I think he had it on him
> in Bree because the portents argued that it was finally time for Narsil
> to be reforged. So, he was either already on the way to Rivendell when
> he was redirected to Frodo's quest, or he looked at the situation and
> decided to take the sword with him.
>
There was something I came across (in Letters?) a while back, that said that
the surviving Dunedain population in Arnor was living in the Angle, i.e.
between the Hoarwell and the Loudwater, just south-west of Rivendell. If
that's the case (before I'm Flamed, I'm only going on memory here ;-), what
was Aragorn doing wandering over to the Shire, wearing this thing? I seem
to remember Strider saying that he only heard the rumours re: Gandalf & the
Black Riders, when he had returned into western Arnor from the "journey of
[his] own" (to visit the fiancee, perhaps?)
By the way, what exactly *was* Aragorn up to behind the hedge on the Road -
"... Now, I was behind the hedge this evening on the Road west of
Bree..."(tFotR, "Strider", pp. 190)
??????
D.
Jim
David Flood <nospam-...@corpoman.buyandsell.ie> wrote in message
news:981561$i60$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Ron Christian" <ro...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
> news:3aa405b6$1...@news.nwlink.com...
> > In article <97u9o3$t4m$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> > David Flood <nospam-...@corpoman.buyandsell.ie> wrote:
> <snip>
> > I don't have the book in front of me, but it seems to me that their goal
> > was to go directly to Rivendell, and that the first thing he did with
the
> > weapon once he got there was have it reforged. I think he had it on him
> > in Bree because the portents argued that it was finally time for Narsil
> > to be reforged. So, he was either already on the way to Rivendell when
> > he was redirected to Frodo's quest, or he looked at the situation and
> > decided to take the sword with him.
> >
But why not leave it in Rivendell where he was fostered?
He had left other heirlooms there (sceptre of Annuminas iirc) so why not the
sword which wasn't going to be much use in a fight?
The only suggestion I can offer is that he was keeping it in case his
heritage was challenged in the wild, which is pathetically flimsy.
> By the way, what exactly *was* Aragorn up to behind the hedge on the
Road -
> "... Now, I was behind the hedge this evening on the Road west of
> Bree..."(tFotR, "Strider", pp. 190)
He was looking for the hobbits.
Jim D
David Flood
news:E1Vo6.13748$925.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> David Flood <nospam-...@corpoman.buyandsell.ie> wrote in message
> news:981561$i60$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > By the way, what exactly *was* Aragorn up to behind the hedge on the
> Road -
> > "... Now, I was behind the hedge this evening on the Road west of
> > Bree..."(tFotR, "Strider", pp. 190)
>
> He was looking for the hobbits.
>
> Jim D
Or just answering the Call of Nature (I'm very, very, very sorry - I just
couldn't resist this one ;-)
D.
Stan Brown
>I don't have the book in front of me, but it seems to me that their goal
>was to go directly to Rivendell, and that the first thing he did with the
>weapon once he got there was have it reforged. I think he had it on him
>in Bree because the portents argued that it was finally time for Narsil
>to be reforged.
My problem with that explanation is that the sword started out in
Rivendell, where Elrond gave it to Aragorn (along with other
heirlooms) before the start of the War. So Aragorn had to carry a
broken sword at least from Rivendell to Bree and back again, instead
of something more useful.
I hope someone can come up with a story-internal explanation that's
at least plausible, because this point has always bothered me too.
Seems like David Flood struck a nerve here -- and I mean that in a
good way.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Phil Edwards
Jim <shrapn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> But why not leave it in Rivendell where he was fostered?
> He had left other heirlooms there (sceptre of Annuminas iirc) so why not the
> sword which wasn't going to be much use in a fight?
I agree. More to the point, leaving the Sceptre behind wasn't his choice,
since Elrond hadn't handed it over yet. Likewise, with regard to Narsil,
I'm mildly surprised that Elrond hadn't told Aragorn, "Look, you young
whippersnapper[*], that's /valuable/ and it's /useless/ in a fight,
and it's staying /here/ until it's reforged. Get a working sword from
the forge on your way out. Oh, and keep yer Secondborn mitts off-a my
daughter until you give her a ring!"
And yes, Aragorn and already given Arwen the ring of Barahir at their
trothplighting on Cerin Amroth, I know... it just sounded good when I
wrote it. :-)
[*] That's a Quenya expression I believe.
> The only suggestion I can offer is that he was keeping it in case his
> heritage was challenged in the wild, which is pathetically flimsy.
Maybe he was counting on the legends of the final fight of the Last Alliance
to see him through. "Hey you mangy orcs, I'm carrying the shards of Narsil
-- see? -- and that's because I'm Isidur's Heir, ergo don't f*ck with me."
This would only work until other people started claiming an exalted lineage,
and showing broken swords as proof. Then he'd have to back his claims up
in some other way.
Phil Edwards
Frannie <franni...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> my hubby says..keep reading!
Well, thanks for quoting my entire post only to add one line. I've read
the books so many times I feel I can quote entire passages. So, ask your
hubbie, please, what exactly he had in mind? You won't be spoiling any
surprises for me. If somebody out there has a working in-story answer,
I'd love to hear it.
Blast Tolkien for having the bad grace to suddenly pass away before we
could ask him these questions. :-(
Russ
bra...@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) writes:
>My problem with that explanation is that the sword started out in
>Rivendell, where Elrond gave it to Aragorn (along with other
>heirlooms) before the start of the War. So Aragorn had to carry a
>broken sword at least from Rivendell to Bree and back again, instead
>of something more useful.
>
>I hope someone can come up with a story-internal explanation that's
>at least plausible, because this point has always bothered me too.
>Seems like David Flood struck a nerve here -- and I mean that in a
>good way.
>
Quite frankly, I simply never took Tolkien's comments in Letters very
seriously. We have to assume some comments in Letters were simply off the cuff
remarks like anyone else who has ever written a letter in his life. (God knows
there are some things saved on Deja that I wish weren't saved for posterity
<g>). And Aragorn not having a usable sword and merely carrying around some
shards is one of them.
(Sauron bringing the Ring to Numenor and carrying it back to Middle-earth as a
spirit is another)
Russ
Conrad Dunkerson
news:20010306022636...@nso-cg.aol.com...
> We have to assume some comments in Letters were simply off the
> cuff remarks like anyone else who has ever written a letter in
> his life.
> And Aragorn not having a usable sword and merely carrying around
> some shards is one of them.
> (Sauron bringing the Ring to Numenor and carrying it back to
> Middle-earth as a spirit is another)
There may be reasons to question the logic of each of these (though
I don't personally have a problem with either), but they were
certainly not just 'off the cuff'. Both appeared more than once
and over a period of years.
Conrad Dunkerson
> I think he was there rather to join Gandalf in escorting the
> Ringbearer to Rivendell (see below), wherever he had come from -
> prudence should have had him able to defend himself and the
> Ring...
If he knew he would be in particular danger (which seems unlikely
to me). At that, I think he COULD defend himself... even when the
Nazgul showed up.
Consider the road the hobbits were taking. Bilbo and a bunch of
unarmed Dwarves took the same route without great concern, and
would have been fine except for a trio of recently arrived trolls.
Further, Gandalf had said;
"'If you want my advice, make for Rivendell. That journey should
not prove too perilous, though the Road is less easy than it was,
and it will grow worse as the year fails."
FotR, Three is Company
At this point only Frodo and Sam were supposed to be going on the
journey. If Gandalf expected it to be 'not too perilous' for THEM
then I'd argue that it certainly wasn't a grave danger for Strider.
Of course, the arrival of the Nazgul changed all that but there is
no indication Strider knew the Nazgul were about until September...
after he returned from the 'journey of his own'. The fact that it
was a matter 'of his own' suggests to me that he had gone to
retrieve the sword.
> Strider seems, from his own account in tFotR, have returned from
> Wilderland with Gandalf, gone on his 'journey', then returned to
> join Gandalf at the Shire in Sept. (to also accompany the
> Ringbearer to Rivendell?).
> OK - we know that for some strange reason he travelled to meet
> Gandalf and Frodo practically unarmed... Why didn't he at least
> borrow some gear from either the Elves he met, or the Rangers
> manning the Fords? It was obvious that there was danger of
> fighting, in getting the Ring out of the Shire and safely to
> Rivendell...
Let's have the passage to get the sequence of events;
"'I came west with him in the spring. ... We last met on the first
of May: at Sarn Ford down the Brandywine. He told me that his
business with you had gone well, and that you would be starting
for Rivendell in the last week of September. As I knew he was at
your side, I went away on a journey of my own. And that proved
ill; for plainly some news reached him, and I was not at hand to
help. ... When I returned, many days ago, I heard the ill news.
The tidings had gone far and wide that Gandalf was missing and the
horsemen had been seen."
FotR, Strider
As such I would agree that Strider had likely returned in hopes of
joining Gandalf in escorting Frodo to Rivendell. However, from
the time they parted at Sarn Ford (where the Rangers held a guard
and later fought the Nazgul) until he expected to meet Gandalf in
September he was off on a trip and did not learn of the Nazgul
until he returned. At which point he wasn't near any of the known
Ranger dwellings / outposts where he could switch weapons. He
could have gotten something from the Elves - if they were armed,
and if he knew that HE would be meeting Frodo and they wouldn't.
At that, swords that struck Nazgul exploded and injured the
wielder... he was probably better off with a firebrand, and he
knew it.
In April Gandalf felt that the road to Rivendell would not prove
too perilous for two unarmed and untried hobbits to travel in
September. On May 1st he met with Strider and told him about this.
Sometime in June he hears of the Nazgul, leaves a message telling
Frodo to leave before August, and takes off for Isengard. Frodo
doesn't get the message, and so is 'on time' to meet Strider.
Strider was expecting a road safe enough for two unarmed hobbits
to travel alone... and Gandalf as escort. To me it all ties
together logically. He had the shards because the time for them
to be reforged was at hand. He didn't have another sword because
it would be awkward to carry both, the road was supposed to be
safe, Gandalf was supposed to be there, and/or swords were not the
best weapons against Nazgul.
Mnkohrz
>From: mcr...@aol.com (Russ)
>Date: 3/6/01 1:26 AM Central Standard Time
>>I hope someone can come up with a story-internal explanation that's at least
plausible, because this point has always bothered me too.
Well, how does this sound? Aragorn had three reasons to carry the shards
of Narsil: sentimential, practical and utilitarian. The broken sword served as
a personal reminder of his legacy and his purpose in life. He was not just
another Ranger, he was the Heir of Isildur. As such he had responsibilities
and duties that dictated that he could not afford to be the hot-tempered,
reckless warrior that Boromir or Eomer was. The sword therefore served to
remind him to use his brains rather than his brawn. (And I assert that this is
entirely in accord with Tolkien's portrayal of Aragorn. He was quick to action
when necessary, but otherwise he preferred to weigh his options and choose the
best one when circumstances permitted.)
As a practical matter, of course, this meant that he had to rely on other
skills and talents: stealth, concealment, woodcraft and strategy. It may even
have forced him to rely on other weapons, altho these are never mentioned
(which may or may not be significant.) He might have also carried a staff, for
example, since it can be a very useful thing in hilly terrain.
Lastly, even a broken sword is not totally useless in a fight. The blade
was broken a foot below the hilt - this still left a good twelve inches that he
could use to slash or parry. (It was certainly longer than the blades that the
hobbits carried.) It's certainly true that a whole sword would have been a
much better weapon, but I don't believe that Aragorn ever carried it as a
weapon until after it was reforged.
Someone else in this thread implied that Narsil reforged would have been
much more effective against the Nazgul. Let me point out that even if Aragorn
had Anduril, it is doubtful he would have wielded it against the Nazgul since
"all blades perish that peirce that dreadful king."
Mnkohrz
Stan Brown
>Quite frankly, I simply never took Tolkien's comments in Letters very
>seriously. We have to assume some comments in Letters were simply off the cuff
>remarks like anyone else who has ever written a letter in his life. (God knows
>there are some things saved on Deja that I wish weren't saved for posterity
><g>). And Aragorn not having a usable sword and merely carrying around some
>shards is one of them.
Actually, no, we are not dependent on the Letters. In the Inn at
Bree he shows Sam his broken sword. I don't see an explicit
statement that Strider carried no other sword, but that scene would
have been very strange if he had had one.
In Appendix A we read of Elrond having turned the sword over to him
at age 20:
'But when Estel was only twenty years of age, it chanced that he
returned to Rivendell after great deeds in the company of the sons
of Elrond; and Elrond looked at him and was pleased, for he saw that
he was fair and noble and was early come to manhood, though he would
yet become greater in body and in mind. That day therefore Elrond
called him by his true name, and told him who he was and whose son;
and he delivered to him the heirlooms of his house.
' "Here is the ring of Barahir," he said, "the token of our kinship
from afar; and here also are the shards of Narsil." '
Stug
>
> As a practical matter, of course, this meant that he had to rely on other
> skills and talents: stealth, concealment, woodcraft
"Speak, Orc, or I shall whittle you to death with this . . . thing that is almost a
sword."
Stug
--
"...the Balrogs get hence with a measureless booty."
--Meglin, The Fall of Gondolin
Russ
bra...@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) writes:
>>Quite frankly, I simply never took Tolkien's comments in Letters very
>>seriously. We have to assume some comments in Letters were simply off the
>cuff
>>remarks like anyone else who has ever written a letter in his life. (God
>knows
>>there are some things saved on Deja that I wish weren't saved for posterity
>><g>). And Aragorn not having a usable sword and merely carrying around some
>>shards is one of them.
>
>Actually, no, we are not dependent on the Letters. In the Inn at
>Bree he shows Sam his broken sword. I don't see an explicit
>statement that Strider carried no other sword, but that scene would
>have been very strange if he had had one.
>
>In Appendix A we read of Elrond having turned the sword over to him
>at age 20:
>
>'But when Estel was only twenty years of age, it chanced that he
>returned to Rivendell after great deeds in the company of the sons
>of Elrond; and Elrond looked at him and was pleased, for he saw that
>he was fair and noble and was early come to manhood, though he would
>yet become greater in body and in mind. That day therefore Elrond
>called him by his true name, and told him who he was and whose son;
>and he delivered to him the heirlooms of his house.
>
>' "Here is the ring of Barahir," he said, "the token of our kinship
>from afar; and here also are the shards of Narsil." '
I don't have a problem with Aragorn carrying around shards. I do have a problem
with him having no other weapon in the dangerous wilds of Eriador.
Russ
Russ
Ron Christian
Mnkohrz <mnk...@gateway.net> wrote:
> As a practical matter, of course, this meant that he had to rely on other
>skills and talents: stealth, concealment, woodcraft and strategy. It may even
>have forced him to rely on other weapons, altho these are never mentioned
>(which may or may not be significant.) He might have also carried a staff, for
>example, since it can be a very useful thing in hilly terrain.
The problem I have with this is that it's demonstrated in Return
of the King (and implied earlier) that Aragorn was one of the most
skilled warriors of his day. How did he obtain such skill with a
sword, if he never handled a working one until the start of the quest?
Ron Christian
Phil Edwards <pedw...@dmapub.dma.org> wrote:
>
>Frannie <franni...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> my hubby says..keep reading!
>
>Well, thanks for quoting my entire post only to add one line. I've read
>the books so many times I feel I can quote entire passages.
I think she means, keep reading the post you responded to. You jumped
the gun hitting reply after the first paragraph.
Ron Christian
Stan Brown <bra...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Quoth Ron Christian <ro...@pacifier.com> in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>I don't have the book in front of me, but it seems to me that their goal
>>was to go directly to Rivendell, and that the first thing he did with the
>>weapon once he got there was have it reforged. I think he had it on him
>>in Bree because the portents argued that it was finally time for Narsil
>>to be reforged.
>
>My problem with that explanation is that the sword started out in
>Rivendell, where Elrond gave it to Aragorn (along with other
>heirlooms) before the start of the War. So Aragorn had to carry a
>broken sword at least from Rivendell to Bree and back again, instead
>of something more useful.
How long was it from the time Elrond gave Aragorn back his broken
sword and the meeting in Bree? If weeks or months, you have a point,
but if it were years, I'd expect that Aragorn kept it in some Ranger
enclave. Perhaps one of the ruins of Arnor that he seemed to know
so much about. I don't think it's ever mentioned in the stories,
but I would expect the Rangers to have fortified outposts here and
there. It's unreasonable to think that they all lived like hobos
all the time.
Roberto Ullfig
>
> In article <20010306100638...@ng-ff1.news.gateway.net>,
> Mnkohrz <mnk...@gateway.net> wrote:
> > As a practical matter, of course, this meant that he had to rely on other
> >skills and talents: stealth, concealment, woodcraft and strategy. It may even
> >have forced him to rely on other weapons, altho these are never mentioned
> >(which may or may not be significant.) He might have also carried a staff, for
> >example, since it can be a very useful thing in hilly terrain.
>
> The problem I have with this is that it's demonstrated in Return
> of the King (and implied earlier) that Aragorn was one of the most
> skilled warriors of his day. How did he obtain such skill with a
> sword, if he never handled a working one until the start of the quest?
>
> Ron
I always figured Aragorn got most of his sword training in
Gondor when he was younger. It seems to me that a sword might be
an impractical thing to carry around in light of the fact that
though wild, the North wasn't all too dangerous. A sturdy long
dagger would suffice - swords are for war - the hobbits took
nothing with them. Don't know where Halbarad and the others got
their training.
The shards were probably kept in Rivendell for good keeping and
Aragorn took them, as tokens of good faith to show to Frodo,
just before he left Rivendell for Bree; he took them to bring
Frodo so that he could bring him into the story so to speak.
No other weapon is mentioned other than the shards between Bree
and Rivendell so I think that at most he had a long dagger at
this time.
--
Roberto Ullfig : ro...@suba.com
Conrad Dunkerson
> How long was it from the time Elrond gave Aragorn back his broken
> sword and the meeting in Bree?
About sixty-seven years... and I agree that it seems unlikely he
was carrying the pieces around that whole time.
Stan Brown
>sword and the meeting in Bree? If weeks or months, you have a point,
>but if it were years, I'd expect that Aragorn kept it in some Ranger
>enclave.
'Twas over 60 years. As I quoted earlier (and Russ full-quoted it
but did not respond to the point), Elrond gave Aragorn the heirlooms
including Narsil when Aragorn was 20. Aragorn was born TA 2931, so
he received the heirlooms in 2951. The War of the Ring was in 3018-
19, when Aragorn was in his eighties.
(Aragorn getting the sword from Appendix A; all other dates from the
Tale of Years, Appendix B of LotR.)
Russ
writes:
>> As a practical matter, of course, this meant that he had to rely on
>other
>>skills and talents: stealth, concealment, woodcraft and strategy. It may
>even
>>have forced him to rely on other weapons, altho these are never mentioned
>>(which may or may not be significant.) He might have also carried a staff,
>for
>>example, since it can be a very useful thing in hilly terrain.
>
>The problem I have with this is that it's demonstrated in Return
>of the King (and implied earlier) that Aragorn was one of the most
>skilled warriors of his day. How did he obtain such skill with a
>sword, if he never handled a working one until the start of the quest?
According to the Appendices, he fought for Rohan and Gondor in his younger days
under an alias. One must presume he wasn't walking around then with his
shards.
Russ
Meneldil
<snip>
>
>I always figured Aragorn got most of his sword training in
>Gondor when he was younger. It seems to me that a sword might be
>an impractical thing to carry around in light of the fact that
>though wild, the North wasn't all too dangerous. A sturdy long
>dagger would suffice - swords are for war - the hobbits took
>nothing with them. Don't know where Halbarad and the others got
>their training.
>
I'd think the North was *fairly* dangerous. Doesn't Aragorn say at the
Council of Elrond that it is the valour of the Dunedain of the North that
keeps the terrors at bay? Right when he's grumbling about the nickname the
Breefolk gave him... Sorry, I don't have any of the books with me, and so
can't supply the exact quote.
Cheers,
Meneldil
Phil Edwards
Ron Christian <ro...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
> I think she means, keep reading the post you responded to. You jumped
> the gun hitting reply after the first paragraph.
Except that I've never hit reply after reading only the first paragraph.
Ever. In years. I hate people who do that.
For that matter, I hate it when people don't read the existing responses
to a question before posting their own. And when I posted my response,
there were no others on my server yet.
To top it off, the poster who asked the question didn't answer it later
in the same post, so I'm uncertain on what I'm supposed to have gained by
reading the rest of it... which I did... and just now did again. We still
haven't figured out a good in-story answer to the question.
Desperately dragging this back on topic, I'm inclined to assume that
Aragorn had a long dagger elsewhere on him that Tolkien didn't feel
was worth mentioning. He mentions it for the hobbits because daggers
were unusual for the hobbits; one would not be unusual for the Rangers.
The sight of a sheathed sword would probably have been enough for most of
the creepy-crawlies around the North.
Out-of-story, I think this falls into the same category as, "Why is the
name Moria on the West-gate?" 'Cause Tolkien probably didn't think about
it, that's why. :-)
Phil
Jim
Meneldil <mene...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:983q53$boi$1...@cpca14.uea.ac.uk...
> Şus cwæş Roberto Ullfig <rul...@uchicago.edu>:
> I'd think the North was *fairly* dangerous. Doesn't Aragorn say at the
> Council of Elrond that it is the valour of the Dunedain of the North that
> keeps the terrors at bay? Right when he's grumbling about the nickname
the
> Breefolk gave him... Sorry, I don't have any of the books with me, and so
> can't supply the exact quote.
I'd say 'fairly' is at least how dangerous the North is implied to be by
those dealing with the dangers :
"`And yet less thanks have we than you. Travellers scowl at us, and
countrymen give us scornful names. "Strider" I am to one fat man who lives
within a day's march of foes that would freeze his heart or lay his little
town in ruin, if he were not guarded ceaselessly. Yet we would not have it
otherwise. If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be,
and we must be secret to keep them so. That has been the task of my kindred,
while the years have lengthened and the grass has grown.
`But now the world is changing once again. A new hour comes. Isildur's Bane
is found. Battle is at hand. The Sword shall be reforged. I will come to
Minas Tirith.'"
[Strider spreaking at the council of Elrond]
Jim D
Stan Brown
>>>plausible, because this point has always bothered me too.
Actually, Russ didn't say the above; I did. Please be careful with
attributions.
> Well, how does this sound? Aragorn had three reasons to carry the shards
>of Narsil: sentimential, practical and utilitarian. The broken sword served as
>a personal reminder of his legacy and his purpose in life.
> As a practical matter, [...] It may even
>have forced him to rely on other weapons, altho these are never mentioned
>(which may or may not be significant.)
> Lastly, even a broken sword is not totally useless in a fight. The blade
>was broken a foot below the hilt - this still left a good twelve inches that he
>could use to slash or parry.
But that sucker was heavy! I don't know how heady swords were, but
surely it was in the broadsword family, not a slender epee. So it
would have weighed some tens of pounds, right?
When your only transportation is your two feet, carrying _anything_
is a luxury. I agree with the matter of sentiment, but that seems to
me an argument _for_ keeping it safe in Rivendell and _against_
carrying it around in the wild. After all, it was upwards of three
thousand years old. That corresponds in our world to 500 years
before the golden age of Greece and the beginnings of Rome. Anything
that old would be kept in a treasury or museum, not carried around.
> Someone else in this thread implied that Narsil reforged would have been
>much more effective against the Nazgul. Let me point out that even if Aragorn
>had Anduril, it is doubtful he would have wielded it against the Nazgul since
>"all blades perish that peirce that dreadful king."
I don't know who said that, but I agree with your rebuttal.
David Flood
news:BT3p6.6879$Ey1.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "David Flood" <nospam-...@corpoman.buyandsell.ie> wrote in message
> news:981h70$7ln$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > I think he was there rather to join Gandalf in escorting the
> > Ringbearer to Rivendell (see below), wherever he had come from -
> > prudence should have had him able to defend himself and the
> > Ring...
>
> If he knew he would be in particular danger (which seems unlikely
> to me). At that, I think he COULD defend himself... even when the
> Nazgul showed up.
Both his father and grandfather had met violent deaths in Eriador, fighting
Minions of Darkness... it's safe to assume alot of 'ordinary' Dunedain did,
as well. Aragorn himself keeps talking about how the Rangers are
ceaselessly guarding the Shire, and Bree... why bother if there's no danger?
> Consider the road the hobbits were taking. Bilbo and a bunch of
> unarmed Dwarves took the same route without great concern, and
> would have been fine except for a trio of recently arrived trolls.
> Further, Gandalf had said;
See above...
> "'If you want my advice, make for Rivendell. That journey should
> not prove too perilous, though the Road is less easy than it was,
> and it will grow worse as the year fails."
> FotR, Three is Company
was this the same Wizard who abandoned Thorin & Co. to near disaster (of the
fatal kind) in Mirkwood? And was completely fooled, and then kidnapped, by
Saruman?
> At this point only Frodo and Sam were supposed to be going on the
> journey. If Gandalf expected it to be 'not too perilous' for THEM
> then I'd argue that it certainly wasn't a grave danger for Strider.
> Of course, the arrival of the Nazgul changed all that but there is
> no indication Strider knew the Nazgul were about until September...
> after he returned from the 'journey of his own'. The fact that it
> was a matter 'of his own' suggests to me that he had gone to
> retrieve the sword.
That *is* the probable explanation for the 'trip'
> He could have gotten something from the Elves - if they were armed,
> and if he knew that HE would be meeting Frodo and they wouldn't.
> At that, swords that struck Nazgul exploded and injured the
> wielder... he was probably better off with a firebrand, and he
> knew it.
>
> In April Gandalf felt that the road to Rivendell would not prove
> too perilous for two unarmed and untried hobbits to travel in
> September. On May 1st he met with Strider and told him about this.
> Sometime in June he hears of the Nazgul, leaves a message telling
> Frodo to leave before August, and takes off for Isengard. Frodo
> doesn't get the message, and so is 'on time' to meet Strider.
> Strider was expecting a road safe enough for two unarmed hobbits
> to travel alone... and Gandalf as escort. To me it all ties
> together logically. He had the shards because the time for them
> to be reforged was at hand. He didn't have another sword because
> it would be awkward to carry both, the road was supposed to be
> safe, Gandalf was supposed to be there, and/or swords were not the
> best weapons against Nazgul.
The shards he *had to have* (off-topic, when did he first mention that he
was going to Gondor?). He, as an experienced soldier and a VIP, should have
been carrying some sort of weapon for his own protection - only pure 'luck',
allowed them to make it safely to Rivendell; even then it was close.
Nazgul were surely not the only things that had to be defended against on
the road to Rivendell - Trolls, for example, and Men such as Saruman's
brigands in Bree. The Nazgul were certainly armed with swords - the best
defence against a sword isn't a shield, it's another sword... *He soon
found out on his return from the 'trip' that things were wrong -
why-didn't-he-obtain-a-weapon*
Daithi
David Flood
news:20010306100638...@ng-ff1.news.gateway.net...
> >Subject: Re: Why was Strider lugging around a Broken Sword???
> >From: mcr...@aol.com (Russ)
> >Date: 3/6/01 1:26 AM Central Standard Time
>
> >>I hope someone can come up with a story-internal explanation that's at
least
> plausible, because this point has always bothered me too.
>
> Well, how does this sound? Aragorn had three reasons to carry the
shards
> of Narsil: sentimential, practical and utilitarian. The broken sword
served as
> a personal reminder of his legacy and his purpose in life. He was not
just
> another Ranger, he was the Heir of Isildur. As such he had
responsibilities
> and duties that dictated that he could not afford to be the hot-tempered,
> reckless warrior that Boromir or Eomer was. The sword therefore served to
> remind him to use his brains rather than his brawn. (And I assert that
this is
> entirely in accord with Tolkien's portrayal of Aragorn. He was quick to
action
> when necessary, but otherwise he preferred to weigh his options and choose
the
> best one when circumstances permitted.)
Sentimental reasons wouldn't have been enough for such an experienced
soldier to neglect to arm himself while travelling in troubled times...
> As a practical matter, of course, this meant that he had to rely on
other
> skills and talents: stealth, concealment, woodcraft and strategy. It may
even
> have forced him to rely on other weapons, altho these are never mentioned
> (which may or may not be significant.) He might have also carried a
staff, for
> example, since it can be a very useful thing in hilly terrain.
> Lastly, even a broken sword is not totally useless in a fight. The
blade
> was broken a foot below the hilt - this still left a good twelve inches
that he
> could use to slash or parry. (It was certainly longer than the blades
that the
> hobbits carried.) It's certainly true that a whole sword would have been
a
> much better weapon, but I don't believe that Aragorn ever carried it as a
> weapon until after it was reforged.
"Twelve inches" for sword-fighting isn't worth a damn. I spent an entire
summer working with swords (in Braveheart a long time ago), so I can imagine
how un-reassuring a twelve-inch blade would have been against the longswords
of the Nazgul. The Hobbits's hunting-knives were only good for stabbing or
slashing- useless for parrying. Believe me, size *is* everything
> Someone else in this thread implied that Narsil reforged would have
been
> much more effective against the Nazgul. Let me point out that even if
Aragorn
> had Anduril, it is doubtful he would have wielded it against the Nazgul
since
> "all blades perish that peirce that dreadful king."
At the last extreme, if the Nazgul had bothered to press their attack,
Aragorn would have had much more use for a good sword, rather than just a
few firebrands...
David Flood
> >The problem I have with this is that it's demonstrated in Return
> >of the King (and implied earlier) that Aragorn was one of the most
> >skilled warriors of his day. How did he obtain such skill with a
> >sword, if he never handled a working one until the start of the quest?
>
> According to the Appendices, he fought for Rohan and Gondor in his younger
days
> under an alias. One must presume he wasn't walking around then with his
> shards.
>
> Russ
I think you *can* safely say he wasn't carrying it in Rohan/Gondor; having
it in his possession would have attracted unwanted notice, both from the
Stewards and Sauron...
D.
David Flood
news:983slk$qi0$1...@dmapub.dma.org...
> Ron Christian <ro...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> > I think she means, keep reading the post you responded to. You jumped
> > the gun hitting reply after the first paragraph.
>
> Except that I've never hit reply after reading only the first paragraph.
> Ever. In years. I hate people who do that.
>
> For that matter, I hate it when people don't read the existing responses
> to a question before posting their own. And when I posted my response,
> there were no others on my server yet.
Nor on mine, PE was the first to reply...
> To top it off, the poster who asked the question didn't answer it later
> in the same post, so I'm uncertain on what I'm supposed to have gained by
> reading the rest of it... which I did... and just now did again.
I was trying to emphasise how strange it was for him to be doing this, on
account of the Sword's value to the Dunedain, its' heralding him as
Elendil's Heir, and the fact that it wouldn't do him much good in a fight.
I think a consensus that he had just gone to fetch it, and bring it *to*
Rivendell, would help to bury this topic. As for his lack of a proper
weapon to defend himself...???
D.
Ron Christian
Russ <mcr...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <3aa53a0a$1...@news.nwlink.com>, ro...@pacifier.com (Ron Christian)
>writes:
>>skilled warriors of his day. How did he obtain such skill with a
>>sword, if he never handled a working one until the start of the quest?
>
>According to the Appendices, he fought for Rohan and Gondor in his younger days
>under an alias. One must presume he wasn't walking around then with his
>shards.
Precisely. He must have carried a weapon in working order (presumably
a sword) during those battles. I don't think it's a stretch to assume
that he bore appropriate weapons up to the time he carried the soon-to-be
Anduril back to Rivendell.
We'll have to see how it's portrayed in the movie. I think it would be
interesting if, in the movie, Strider carried a conventional weapon
on his hip and a package containing the shards across his back (for instance).
Ron
Ron Christian
Stan Brown <bra...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Quoth Ron Christian <ro...@pacifier.com> in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>How long was it from the time Elrond gave Aragorn back his broken
>>sword and the meeting in Bree? If weeks or months, you have a point,
>>but if it were years, I'd expect that Aragorn kept it in some Ranger
>>enclave.
>
>'Twas over 60 years.
Thanks. So, it's entirely unreasonable, in my opinion, to assume that
Aragorn tromped about, traveling hither and yon, watching, protecting,
fighting, defending, making a name for himself all over middle earth
for sixty-some years, all the while dragging around a broken sword.
Mnkohrz
>Date: 3/6/01 10:16 PM Central Standard Time
>
>Quoth Mnkohrz <mnk...@gateway.net> in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>>Subject: Re: Why was Strider lugging around a Broken Sword???
>>>>I hope someone can come up with a story-internal explanation that's at
least plausible, because this point has always bothered me too.
>
>Actually, Russ didn't say the above; I did. Please be careful with
attributions.
My apologies! I misread the post :)
>But that sucker was heavy! I don't know how heady swords were, but surely it
was in the broadsword family, not a slender epee. So it would have weighed some
tens of pounds, right?
I'm not an authority on swords and their weight either, but I would point
out that as "the greatest traveller of the age" (to quote Gandalf) Aragorn must
have been accustomed to bearing burdens for many hundreds of miles. I'm not
sure he would have considered it that much of an extra burden. On the other
hand, of course, I note that he chose not to burden himself with such useful
things as armor or a shield when the Company left Rivendell.
>When your only transportation is your two feet, carrying _anything_ is a
luxury. I agree with the matter of sentiment, but that seems to
me an argument _for_ keeping it safe in Rivendell and _against_ carrying it
around in the wild. After all, it was upwards of three thousand years old. That
corresponds in our world to 500 years before the golden age of Greece and the
beginnings of Rome. Anything that old would be kept in a treasury or museum,
not carried around.
What purpose would it serve in a museum or treasury? "Out of sight, out
of mind" seems to have applied to ME as much as it does to our world. When
Aragorn lugged it around, however, it could serve the same purpose as a wedding
ring or a tattoo - a physical reminder of what was important to him.
For the record, I don't believe that Aragorn lugged it around all the time
either. It would have foolish to carry it while he served in Gondor - a city
where it would likely be recognized almost immediately by Denethor. Perhaps he
only carried it while he was in the North and reasonably certain that he would
not be wandering South for awhile.
There is one other possibility which I neglected to mention in my original
post. It's possible that Aragorn carried the shards of Narsil for the benefit
of the other Rangers. Not so much as a badge of his authority as perhaps a
reminder of why they protected the simple folk of Eriador. In other words,
Narsil may have been sort of an unofficial banner for Aragorn.
Mnkohrz
Mnkohrz
>Date: 3/6/01 4:29 PM Central Standard Time
>Sentimental reasons wouldn't have been enough for such an experienced soldier
to neglect to arm himself while travelling in troubled times...
Tolkien did not specifically say that Aragorn was unarmed during the
journey to Rivendell. He only mentions Narsil because it was one method of
establishing/verifying Aragorn's identity.
>"Twelve inches" for sword-fighting isn't worth a damn. I spent an entire
summer working with swords (in Braveheart a long time ago), so I can imagine
how un-reassuring a twelve-inch blade would have been against the longswords of
the Nazgul. The Hobbits's hunting-knives were only good for stabbing or
slashing- useless for parrying. Believe me, size *is* everything
I never said it would be an effective weapon, only that it was still
possible to use it as a weapon in an emergency. Don't forget that Aragorn's
long arms and legs gave him an advantage of reach that no orc could hope to
match. This alone might have compensated to some extent for the condition of
Narsil.
>At the last extreme, if the Nazgul had bothered to press their attack, Aragorn
would have had much more use for a good sword, rather than just a few
firebrands...
How so? The sword would have been destroyed if he stabbed the Witch-king
even once and it's doubtful that even a sword with the lineage of Narsil would
have been sufficient to destroy a Nazgul. Recall Tolkien's words regarding
Merry's sword in "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields": "No other blade, not
though mightier hands 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." And * that * blade perished after one blow! At least with a
firebrand Aragorn could hope to set a few of the Nazgul ablaze. This wouldn't
have destroyed them, but it might have accomplished the same thing the flood
did - strip them of their shape and scatter them.
Mnkohrz
Russ
mnk...@gateway.net (Mnkohrz) writes:
> How so? The sword would have been destroyed if he stabbed the Witch-king
>even once and it's doubtful that even a sword with the lineage of Narsil
>would
>have been sufficient to destroy a Nazgul.
<snip>
I suppose a blade forged in Valinor might have survived use against a Nazgul
but few if any of those blades survived the First Age.
Russ
Mnkohrz
>Date: 3/7/01 4:52 PM Central Standard Time
>I suppose a blade forged in Valinor might have survived use against a Nazgul
but few if any of those blades survived the First Age.
>
>Russ
Aragorn claimed that Narsil was forged by the dwarvish master smith Telchar
of Nogrod during the First Age. Whether Telchar ever learned any of the
Noldor's secrets (can anyone find any reference to this?) or whether the blade
was reworked by Elvish smiths at some point before it passed to Aragorn is, as
far as I know, unknown.
Incidentally, Turgon's sword Glamdring (later wielded by Gandalf) was
almost certainly forged in Valinor. I always wondered why Gandalf needed
Elrond to decipher the runes on it in The Hobbit.
Mnkohrz
Skylar Thompson
Was it ever mentioned in what language the runes were? I would
think that if it were forged in Valinor by the Noldor, it would be
in Quenya, and Gandalf surely would know Quenya.
--Skylar Thompson (sky...@attglobal.net)
`All that is gold does not glitter/Not all who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither/Deep roots are not reached by the frost
From the ashes a fire shall be woken/A light from the shadows shall spring
Renewed shall be blade that was broken/The crownless again shall be king.'
Stug
(finally found it on deja-noogle...or doogle-news or whatever it is now.)
From: Morgil (rim...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Tolkien needs kick up the bum
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Date: 2000-09-18 07:04:28 PST
>"Sooo, you´re in love with my daughter, eh? And now you´re going
>on a dangerous journey... Weeell, good luck! Eru forbid anything
>*nasty* would happen to you.
>Woops, almost forgot! You have to give up your sword and take these
>pieces instead. Why? Oh, just because um...Because you´re the
>´chosen one´, that´s why! Isn´t that great?"
Stug
--
"...the Balrogs get hence with a measureless booty."
--Meglin, The Fall of Gondolin
Remove 'stug' from e-mail address to contact me.
David Flood
> >Subject: Re: Why was Strider lugging around a Broken Sword???
> >From: "David Flood" nospam-...@corpoman.buyandsell.ie
> >Date: 3/6/01 4:29 PM Central Standard Time
>
> >Sentimental reasons wouldn't have been enough for such an experienced
soldier
> to neglect to arm himself while travelling in troubled times...
>
> Tolkien did not specifically say that Aragorn was unarmed during the
> journey to Rivendell. He only mentions Narsil because it was one method
of
> establishing/verifying Aragorn's identity.
I think when Aragorn 'mock' threatens the Hobbits in Bree, the strong
implication in this scene that Aragorn is 'armed' only with the then-Narsil
(OK - he may have carried a hunting-knife on his belt as well)
> >"Twelve inches" for sword-fighting isn't worth a damn. I spent an entire
> summer working with swords (in Braveheart a long time ago), so I can
imagine
> how un-reassuring a twelve-inch blade would have been against the
longswords of
> the Nazgul. The Hobbits's hunting-knives were only good for stabbing or
> slashing- useless for parrying. Believe me, size *is* everything
>
> I never said it would be an effective weapon, only that it was still
> possible to use it as a weapon in an emergency. Don't forget that
Aragorn's
> long arms and legs gave him an advantage of reach that no orc could hope
to
> match. This alone might have compensated to some extent for the condition
of
> Narsil.
You *are* taking the p*ss here, I hope?
> >At the last extreme, if the Nazgul had bothered to press their attack,
Aragorn
> would have had much more use for a good sword, rather than just a few
> firebrands...
>
> How so? The sword would have been destroyed if he stabbed the
Witch-king
> even once and it's doubtful that even a sword with the lineage of Narsil
would
> have been sufficient to destroy a Nazgul. Recall Tolkien's words
regarding
> Merry's sword in "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields": "No other blade,
not
> though mightier hands 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." And * that * blade perished after one blow! At least with a
> firebrand Aragorn could hope to set a few of the Nazgul ablaze. This
wouldn't
> have destroyed them, but it might have accomplished the same thing the
flood
> did - strip them of their shape and scatter them.
Is he referring here to the effect of 'a spell' in the blade in disrupting
the 'magic' that kept the Witch-King intact, as opposed to the intrinsic
qualities of the Numenorean foes against all foes (D&D players correct me
here, I'm not into roleplaying, but I think there's weapons which would be
'magical', giving bonuses against all foes, but give great advantage against
a specified type of creature i.e. Orcs (Glamdring/Sting?), or Undead...)
Also fighting is a matter of offense and defense; a sword is much better for
parrying than a piece of burning wood...
The Narrator also shouldn't always be taken at his literal word; often
passages are exaggerated for dramatic effect at some point in the Story -
how many individuals are referred to as Eldest/Oldest/Whatever???
David Flood
"Is he referring here to the effect of 'a spell' in the blade in disrupting
the 'magic' that kept the Witch-King intact, as opposed to the intrinsic
qualities of the Numenorean *blades* against all foes "
sorry for the typo,
Daithi
Russ
mnk...@gateway.net (Mnkohrz) writes:
> Aragorn claimed that Narsil was forged by the dwarvish master smith
>Telchar
>of Nogrod during the First Age. Whether Telchar ever learned any of the
>Noldor's secrets (can anyone find any reference to this?) or whether the
>blade
>was reworked by Elvish smiths at some point before it passed to Aragorn is,
>as
>far as I know, unknown.
> Incidentally, Turgon's sword Glamdring (later wielded by Gandalf) was
>almost certainly forged in Valinor.
I thought Gondolin.
> I always wondered why Gandalf needed
>Elrond to decipher the runes on it in The Hobbit.
Damn good point. Guess that's why we don't take the Hobbit and it's talking
foxes that seriously.
Jim
> >Actually, no, we are not dependent on the Letters. In the Inn at
> >Bree he shows Sam his broken sword. I don't see an explicit
> >statement that Strider carried no other sword, but that scene would
> >have been very strange if he had had one.
> >
> >In Appendix A we read of Elrond having turned the sword over to him
> >at age 20:
> >
> >'But when Estel was only twenty years of age, it chanced that he
> >returned to Rivendell after great deeds in the company of the sons
> >of Elrond; and Elrond looked at him and was pleased, for he saw that
> >he was fair and noble and was early come to manhood, though he would
> >yet become greater in body and in mind. That day therefore Elrond
> >called him by his true name, and told him who he was and whose son;
> >and he delivered to him the heirlooms of his house.
> >
> >' "Here is the ring of Barahir," he said, "the token of our kinship
> >from afar; and here also are the shards of Narsil." '
>
> I don't have a problem with Aragorn carrying around shards. I do have a
problem
> with him having no other weapon in the dangerous wilds of Eriador.
I am uneasy with Aragorn carrying around broken metal to encumber himself.
Did he take the shards with him when he was serving in Rohan and Gondor? It
seems to me that he would probably have left them in Rivendell, and that
thats where he should have left them until the sword was reforged, and only
then should he have taken it anywhere. Any other scenario does not for me
fit in with Aragorns image of being very wise that I get from the book.
Jim D
Stan Brown
>Guess that's why we don't take the Hobbit and its talking
>foxes that seriously.
The talking fox was in LotR, though he was talking to himself.
From Chapter 3, "Three is Company":
"A fox passing through the wood on business of his own stopped
several minutes and sniffed.
"'Hobbits!' he thought. 'Well, what next? I have heard of strange
doings in this land, but I have seldom heard of a hobbit sleeping
out of doors under a tree. Three of them! There's something mighty
queer behind this.' He was quite right, but he never found out any
more about it."
I don't believe there is any mention of a fox, speaking or silent,
in /The Hobbit/, though I will happily admit error if someone has a
citation.
Mnkohrz
>Date: 3/8/01 7:56 PM Central Standard Time
>mnk...@gateway.net (Mnkohrz) writes:
>> Incidentally, Turgon's sword Glamdring (later wielded by Gandalf) was
almost certainly forged in Valinor.
>
>I thought Gondolin.
Well, I knew that Fingolfin and his sons forged weapons under the guidance
of Melkor (or at his suggestion if you prefer) and I assumed that these were
the weapons they brought to ME. It also seemed to me that Turgon would have
preferred to wield the sword that he had used for years rather than have a new
sword forged. But then I recalled that both Glamdring and Sting glowed with a
bluish light whenever there were orcs nearby - and since there were no orcs in
Valinor then Glamdring must have been forged in Gondolin. Thanks for pointing
out this error.
The thought just occurred to me that the fact that Narsil/Anduril never
glowed in a similar fashion might mean that Telchar did not learn any (or at
least many) of the Noldor's smithing secrets. In fact, I wonder why this orc
detection technology was a secret at all. Surely the elves must have
recognized its value to their allies. I wonder now if perhaps it was only
possible for an Elvish smith to forge such a weapon. If so, why? Thoughts,
anyone?
Mnkohrz
Mnkohrz
>From: "David Flood" nospam-...@corpoman.buyandsell.ie
>"Mnkohrz" <mnk...@gateway.net> wrote
{snip}
>> I never said it would be an effective weapon, only that it was still
possible to use it as a weapon in an emergency. Don't forget that Aragorn's
long arms and legs gave him an advantage of reach that no orc could hope to
match. This alone might have compensated to some extent for the condition of
Narsil.
>
>You *are* taking the p*ss here, I hope?
I suppose it would depend on the height of the individual orc. I've always
taken Tolkien's description of the orc-chieftan in Moria as "almost man-high"
to mean that orcs were only four to five feet in height - and recall that
Aragorn was one of the tallest men in ME. Sssurely your experience with swords
must have taught you that the opponent with the greater reach has the
advantage.
{snip}
>Also fighting is a matter of offense and defense; a sword is much better for
>parrying than a piece of burning wood...
Bear in mind that the Nazgul were not ordinary brigands bent on killing them
all. They were after the Ring. They (and doubtless Aragorn as well) expected
that the terror they wielded would be sufficient to deal with their quarry (as
indeed Merry, Pippin and Sam all proved.) The Nazgul also feared fire and
those who wielded it. Therefore Aragorn hoped to turn the tables on them, so
to speak, by using fear against their fear. The Nazgul also did not seem to me
to be especially courageous unless gathered together in their full numbers.
There were 5 on Weathertop: Only 3 advanced and 2 of those stopped when Frodo
drew his sword. Ultimately only the Witch-King approached Frodo crouched
besides the fire. So I would say that fire made a pretty effective weapon in
this case. Doubtless, you would have been more pleased if Aragorn had drawn a
fully functional sword and charged screaming "Die you ugly, foul wraiths!" or
something to that effect.
>The Narrator also shouldn't always be taken at his literal word; often
passages are exaggerated for dramatic effect at some point in the Story - how
many individuals are referred to as Eldest/Oldest/Whatever???
Technically this may be true, but I consider it an excuse rather than a
reason. Tolkien was not the sort to just add information because it occurred
to him. He gave considerable thought to even minor matters and his new ideas
were usually linked to past ideas in some fashion.
Mnkohrz
Michael Urban
Perhaps Gandalf was able to read the name, but only Elrond would
be able to recount its history and lineage. Under those circumstances,
Gandalf might wish to wait until the runes could be read "properly".
Stan Brown
>>> Incidentally, Turgon's sword Glamdring (later wielded by Gandalf) was
>almost certainly forged in Valinor.
>>
>>I thought Gondolin.
>
> Well, I knew that Fingolfin and his sons forged weapons under the guidance
>of Melkor (or at his suggestion if you prefer) and I assumed that these were
>the weapons they brought to ME. It also seemed to me that Turgon would have
>preferred to wield the sword that he had used for years rather than have a new
>sword forged. But then I recalled that both Glamdring and Sting glowed with a
>bluish light whenever there were orcs nearby - and since there were no orcs in
>Valinor then Glamdring must have been forged in Gondolin. Thanks for pointing
>out this error.
No inference is necessary: Elrond tells us in so many words in /The
Hobbit/ that Glamdring and Orcrist came from Gondolin. At a quick
scan I don't find any such statement about Bilbo's blade.
Russ
mnk...@gateway.net (Mnkohrz) writes:
>Surely the elves must have
>recognized its value to their allies. I wonder now if perhaps it was only
>possible for an Elvish smith to forge such a weapon. If so, why? Thoughts,
>anyone?
>
Dwarves tended to fight orcs in caverns and mines. A glowing sword would
simply tell the enemy were you were.
Russ
Blackhope
Stug kirjoitti viestissä <3AA7C8C5...@telerama.com>...
>I think Morgil had the best answer to this whole question back in
September:
>(finally found it on deja-noogle...or doogle-news or whatever it is now.)
>
I didn´t wanna repeat myself, but I´m always glad when someone else
does it on my behalf.
Blackhope
(once Morestel, who used to be Morgil)
Phil Edwards
Why would the Dwarves care? It's not like they would be /hiding/ from
the orcs. I suspect that having a armed Dwarf running at you and yelling
would be enough hint that a Dwarf is present -- if the orcs haven't figured
it out by then, a blue glow on the blade isn't going to help.
Phil
--
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com | pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more capable fools.
David Flood
> > I always wondered why Gandalf needed
> >Elrond to decipher the runes on it in The Hobbit.
>
> Damn good point. Guess that's why we don't take the Hobbit and it's
talking
> foxes that seriously.
>
Why not, Russ???
After all, LotR, Silm, UT and others have Wizards, Elves (and Beren)
talking to animals. The Eagles could talk... and so could trees (or so the
Ents and Bombadil claimed)
Daithi
perso...@yahoo.com
> Russ <mcr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > In article <20010309060921...@ng-fc1.news.gateway.net>,
> > mnk...@gateway.net (Mnkohrz) writes:
> >
> > >Surely the elves must have
> > >recognized its value to their allies. I wonder now if perhaps it was only
> > >possible for an Elvish smith to forge such a weapon. If so, why? Thoughts,
> > >anyone?
> >
> > Dwarves tended to fight orcs in caverns and mines. A glowing sword would
> > simply tell the enemy were you were.
>
> Why would the Dwarves care? It's not like they would be /hiding/ from
> the orcs. I suspect that having a armed Dwarf running at you and yelling
> would be enough hint that a Dwarf is present -- if the orcs haven't figured
> it out by then, a blue glow on the blade isn't going to help.
>
> Phil
>
>
Well, if the dwarves are running at the orcs and yelling, presumably they are not
sneaking around trying to ambush them.
Unless you are saying that the dwarves brandished swords and yelled just for the
heck of it. --Which would be pretty funny:
Dwarf 1: Well, I'm going to head over to the Chamber of Mazarbul to catch up on
my reading. Want me to get you anything while I'm up there?
Dwarf 2: No thanks.
Dwarf 1: Right then, I'll see you tomorrow. (drawing sword and setting off at a
run) Yeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgggghhh...........Khazād ai-ménu.......!
David Flood
news:98aqve$5bv$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> In article <20010308034751...@ng-da1.news.gateway.net>,
> Mnkohrz <mnk...@gateway.net> wrote:
> >>Subject: Re: Why was Strider lugging around a Broken Sword???
> >>From: mcr...@aol.com (Russ)
> >>Date: 3/7/01 4:52 PM Central Standard Time
> > Incidentally, Turgon's sword Glamdring (later wielded by Gandalf)
was
> >almost certainly forged in Valinor. I always wondered why Gandalf needed
> >Elrond to decipher the runes on it in The Hobbit.
>
> Perhaps Gandalf was able to read the name, but only Elrond would
> be able to recount its history and lineage. Under those circumstances,
> Gandalf might wish to wait until the runes could be read "properly".
I agree with you - the "Speak 'friend' and enter" incident at the West-Gate
of Moria showed that even loremasters like Gandalf might miss subtleties in
phrases. There are often difficulties in translating languages...
D.
John Elliott
> The thought just occurred to me that the fact that Narsil/Anduril never
>glowed in a similar fashion
Narsil certainly did glow in some way:
"But Narsil was broken and its light extinguished, and it has not yet been
forged again." (The Council of Elrond)
and the text suggests that it does as Anduril as well:
"Very bright was that sword when it was made whole again; and the light
of the sun shone redly in it, and the light of the moon shone cold..."
(The Ring Goes South)
"But even as the orc flung down the truncheon and swept out his scimitar,
Anduril came down upon his helm. There was a flash like flame and the helm
burst asunder." (The Bridge of Khazad-Dum)
"Anduril rose and fell, gleaming with white fire." (Helm's Deep)
But no, it doesn't seem to detect orcs like Sting or Glamdring;
in "The Breaking of the Fellowship" Aragorn has to ask Frodo to use
Sting for that purpose.
So either Anduril glows permanently, or it only glows when being wielded
in anger.
--
------------- http://www.seasip.demon.co.uk/index.html --------------------
John Elliott |BLOODNOK: "But why have you got such a long face?"
|SEAGOON: "Heavy dentures, Sir!" - The Goon Show
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------)
David Flood
> >Subject: Re: Why was Strider lugging around a Broken Sword???
> >From: "David Flood" nospam-...@corpoman.buyandsell.ie
> >Date: 3/8/01 5:03 PM Central Standard Time
>
> >"Mnkohrz" <mnk...@gateway.net> wrote
always
> taken Tolkien's description of the orc-chieftan in Moria as "almost
man-high"
> to mean that orcs were only four to five feet in height - and recall that
> Aragorn was one of the tallest men in ME. Sssurely your experience with
swords
> must have taught you that the opponent with the greater reach has the
> advantage.
Go outside. Find your average 5-foot tall kid. Challenge him to a mock
'swordfight', where you have a foot-long stick, and they have one of, say,
three feet. Once they've stopped whuppin' your ass all over the yard, go
back to your computer and post us a reply :-)
> >Also fighting is a matter of offense and defense; a sword is much better
for
> >parrying than a piece of burning wood...
>
> Bear in mind that the Nazgul were not ordinary brigands bent on killing
them
> all. They were after the Ring. They (and doubtless Aragorn as well)
expected
> that the terror they wielded would be sufficient to deal with their quarry
(as
> indeed Merry, Pippin and Sam all proved.) The Nazgul also feared fire and
> those who wielded it. Therefore Aragorn hoped to turn the tables on them,
so
> to speak, by using fear against their fear. The Nazgul also did not seem
to me
> to be especially courageous unless gathered together in their full
numbers.
> There were 5 on Weathertop: Only 3 advanced and 2 of those stopped when
Frodo
> drew his sword. Ultimately only the Witch-King approached Frodo crouched
> besides the fire. So I would say that fire made a pretty effective weapon
in
> this case.
In Letter 210, he says some intersesting things (bear with me while I quote)
"Strider does not 'Whip out a sword' in the book. Naturally not: his sword
was broken. (Its elvish light is another false anticipation of the reforged
Anduril <snip> Why then make him do so here, in a contest that was
explicitly not fought with weapons?"
"There is no fight"
"...and the King steps forward revealed..."
While 'Letters' may not be *quite* canon, the above are interesting for this
discussion.
The core 'struggle' on Weathertop was between the Witch-King and Frodo, 'tis
true - but Aragorn couldn't see the future, so he wouldn't have known in
advance what his enemies would do, *again* he should have armed himself. It
was only misjudgement on the Ringwraiths' part that they didn't press their
attack on the party. the third quote above suggests that the King merely
stood forward to deliver the blow, rather than his companions taking
fright...
If they had done so, rather than withdrawing and waiting for the
Morgul-knife to do its work, then the Ring surely would have been captured,
and Aragorn's firebrands would have done him no good...
> Doubtless, you would have been more pleased if Aragorn had drawn a
> fully functional sword and charged screaming "Die you ugly, foul wraiths!"
or
> something to that effect.
Yeah! Cooooool...
> >The Narrator also shouldn't always be taken at his literal word; often
> passages are exaggerated for dramatic effect at some point in the Story -
how
> many individuals are referred to as Eldest/Oldest/Whatever???
>
> Technically this may be true, but I consider it an excuse rather than a
> reason.
Have we not learned from the whole Balrog 'wings' issue???
> Tolkien was not the sort to just add information because it occurred
> to him. He gave considerable thought to even minor matters and his new
ideas
> were usually linked to past ideas in some fashion.
AFAIR, didn't he say that the 'Ents' just popped into the story, without
premeditation? And the 'Cats of Queen Beruthiel', and... etcetc
Daithi
David Flood
> >> Incidentally, Turgon's sword Glamdring (later wielded by Gandalf)
was
> almost certainly forged in Valinor.
> >I thought Gondolin.
>
> Well, I knew that Fingolfin and his sons forged weapons under the
guidance
> of Melkor (or at his suggestion if you prefer) and I assumed that these
were
> the weapons they brought to ME. It also seemed to me that Turgon would
have
> preferred to wield the sword that he had used for years rather than have a
new
> sword forged. But then I recalled that both Glamdring and Sting glowed
with a
> bluish light whenever there were orcs nearby - and since there were no
orcs in
> Valinor then Glamdring must have been forged in Gondolin. Thanks for
pointing
> out this error.
Glamdring and Sting needn't necessarily have been forged in M-E. In the
Silm, Turin's sword Anglachel (forged by the Sindarin smith Eol) is
*re-forged* by the Noldorin/Sindarin smiths of Nargothrond, so that its'
edges "shone ever with a pale fire"
I suppose you could argue either way as to whether this was the Narsil or
the Glamdring- fire. But the important point is that there was 're-forging'
(upgrading?) of weapons going on among the foes of Morgoth, during the First
Age.
Is it too much to imagine that Turgon's personal weaponry was likewise
reforged at some point when he came back to Middle-Earth? The discovery
may have been made by the Sindar, or by the Noldor in the interval between
their return and the establishment of their hidden kingdoms...
> The thought just occurred to me that the fact that Narsil/Anduril
never
> glowed in a similar fashion might mean that Telchar did not learn any (or
at
> least many) of the Noldor's smithing secrets. In fact, I wonder why this
orc
> detection technology was a secret at all. Surely the elves must have
> recognized its value to their allies. I wonder now if perhaps it was only
> possible for an Elvish smith to forge such a weapon. If so, why?
Thoughts,
> anyone?
They were allies in war, but there were obviously rivalries and suspicion
among them - encouraged by Morgoth. 'Lore' didn't seem to be widely taught
to outsiders...
Daithi
Öjevind Lång
Mittä helvitti? Why do you keep changing your moniker? Is the law after you?
Öjeind
Conrad Dunkerson
news:98bj9l$et5$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Go outside. Find your average 5-foot tall kid. Challenge him to
> a mock 'swordfight', where you have a foot-long stick, and they
> have one of, say, three feet.
Sorry, beating children with a stick isn't my idea of fun. :)
Length is important, but so are height... and skill... and weight
of the blade. Otherwise a Zweihander would be an effective
weapon against a rapier. I assure you... it is not.
> the third quote above suggests that the King merely stood forward
> to deliver the blow, rather than his companions taking fright...
I don't see where it says anything one way or the other about
why the other Nazgul did not attack. The sequence of events in
the actual text certainly seems to indicate that they were daunted
by the resistance.
> If they had done so, rather than withdrawing and waiting for the
> Morgul-knife to do its work, then the Ring surely would have been
> captured, and Aragorn's firebrands would have done him no good...
I disagree. If they were assured of capturing the Ring in an
all out frontal assault then I think they would have MADE an all
out frontal assault. Since the resistance, especially the fire
and the invocation of Elbereth, was so stiff they withdrew after
Frodo had been wounded... which SHOULD have assured success except
that hobbits were much more resistant to that sort of thing than
they could possibly have anticipated.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Incidentally, Turgon's sword Glamdring (later wielded by Gandalf)
> was almost certainly forged in Valinor.
"They [Glamdring and Orcrist] were made in Gondolin for the
Goblin-wars."
Elrond: TH, A Short Rest
> I always wondered why Gandalf needed Elrond to decipher the
> runes on it in The Hobbit.
Out of Story Reason: When he wrote The Hobbit Tolkien did not
intend Gandalf to be a Maia. His knowledge and abilities were
considerable, but far less than what he was granted in LotR.
In Story Reason: Gandalf didn't need Elrond to decipher the runes.
He simply hadn't had an opportunity to read them (indeed he says
that they can learn more about the swords when they can read the
runes - implying that they could do so when time allowed).
Conrad Dunkerson
> Both his father and grandfather had met violent deaths in
> Eriador, fighting Minions of Darkness... it's safe to assume alot
> of 'ordinary' Dunedain did, as well. Aragorn himself keeps
> talking about how the Rangers are ceaselessly guarding the Shire,
> and Bree... why bother if there's no danger?
Certainly... but there might well be a difference in danger
between the wilds of Eriador and the road to Rivendell. I don't
imagine that Orcs wandered up and down the road for instance.
> was this the same Wizard who abandoned Thorin & Co. to near
> disaster (of the fatal kind) in Mirkwood? And was completely
> fooled, and then kidnapped, by Saruman?
Setting aside the obvious retorts I'll simply provide the opinion
of another 'expert';
"Glorfindel smiled. 'I doubt very much,' he said, 'if your friends
would be in danger if you were not with them!'"
FotR, Flight to the Ford
The road was not normally dangerous. There is extensive evidence
of this and (thus far) nothing given to contradict it.
> Nazgul were surely not the only things that had to be defended
> against on the road to Rivendell - Trolls, for example, and Men
> such as Saruman's brigands in Bree.
The trolls were a one-time and short lived anomaly decades before
that. Saruman's brigands were newly arrived and few in number.
I disagree... the Nazgul very much were the only things that had
to be defended against. Gandalf, Glorfindel, Thorin's company,
and Strider all seemed to feel that the road to Rivendell was
normally quite safe.
> The Nazgul were certainly armed with swords - the best defence
> against a sword isn't a shield, it's another sword...
The best defense against Nazgul may well have been fire. Note
that when the Nazgul were about to attack he instructed the
hobbits to get sticks ready to light to defend themselves... NOT
the Dunedain crafted swords they bore which he knew very well to
be 'wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor'. The fire
was a better weapon for the situation.
> *He soon found out on his return from the 'trip' that things were
> wrong - why-didn't-he-obtain-a-weapon*
No opportunity? He didn't know he would find Frodo and be needing
to face them? He knew that the enemy were Nazgul and thus swords
were poor weapons against them?
Skylar Thompson
Maybe Gandalf forgot to put his contacts in that morning?
Skylar Thompson
May be he forgot to put his contacts in that morning? :)
BTW, was not the fox in LotR (Fellowship, IIRC)?
Blackhope
Öjevind Lång kirjoitti viestissä
>Blackhope hath written:
>
>>I didn´t wanna repeat myself, but I´m always glad when someone else
>>does it on my behalf.
>>
>>Blackhope
>>(once Morestel, who used to be Morgil)
>
>
>Mittä helvitti? Why do you keep changing your moniker? Is the law after
you?
No, but there is always a chance that I decide to go into politics some day
and I constantly fear that these messages will one day return to haunt me,
if I´m not careful...
Blackhope
David Flood
news:O1dq6.2100$Rb.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "David Flood" <nospam-...@corpoman.buyandsell.ie> wrote in message
> news:98bj9l$et5$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Right. (rolls back sleeves, flexes muscles) time to put this to rest.
> > Go outside. Find your average 5-foot tall kid. Challenge him to
> > a mock 'swordfight', where you have a foot-long stick, and they
> > have one of, say, three feet.
>
> Sorry, beating children with a stick isn't my idea of fun. :)
Conrad, please don't tell me I have to put disclaimers into posts to this
group *just for you*; "the author disavows any responsibility for the
actions of subscribers to this newsgroup..." ;-)
> Length is important, but so are height... and skill... and weight
> of the blade. Otherwise a Zweihander would be an effective
> weapon against a rapier. I assure you... it is not.
IMHO, you're thinking of the wrong analogy - I'm referring to something more
akin to a knife versus a long-sword...
> > the third quote above suggests that the King merely stood forward
> > to deliver the blow, rather than his companions taking fright...
>
> I don't see where it says anything one way or the other about
> why the other Nazgul did not attack. The sequence of events in
> the actual text certainly seems to indicate that they were daunted
> by the resistance.
They didn't press their attack as strongly as they might have, only the
Witch-King tried to strike the Ringbearer, and that was with the obviously
planned stabbing with the Knife - they assumed the Morgul-knife wound would
accomplish their task for them, and put Frodo under their control...
> > If they had done so, rather than withdrawing and waiting for the
> > Morgul-knife to do its work, then the Ring surely would have been
> > captured, and Aragorn's firebrands would have done him no good...
>
> I disagree. If they were assured of capturing the Ring in an
> all out frontal assault then I think they would have MADE an all
> out frontal assault. Since the resistance, especially the fire
> and the invocation of Elbereth, was so stiff they withdrew after
> Frodo had been wounded... which SHOULD have assured success except
> that hobbits were much more resistant to that sort of thing than
> they could possibly have anticipated.
The Nazgul thought they had 'the cat in the bag', they then withdrew to wait
for their prey to succomb. It seemed to be a mistake born of their
'traditional' mode of warfare - defeating their enemies by indirect means.
David Flood
> "David Flood" <nospam-...@corpoman.buyandsell.ie> wrote in message
> news:983n4b$rg0$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > talking about how the Rangers are ceaselessly guarding the Shire,
> > and Bree... why bother if there's no danger?
>
> Certainly... but there might well be a difference in danger
> between the wilds of Eriador and the road to Rivendell. I don't
> imagine that Orcs wandered up and down the road for instance.
The Shire and Bree were both on the Road, and 'major' (in terms of late TA
Eriador) centres of population, and *hence resistanct to attack*. Yet they
had to be guarded. Surely then there *could* be even greater peril for
travellers on the unprotected, open Road?
> > was this the same Wizard who abandoned Thorin & Co. to near
> > disaster (of the fatal kind) in Mirkwood? And was completely
> > fooled, and then kidnapped, by Saruman?
>
> Setting aside the obvious retorts I'll simply provide the opinion
> of another 'expert';
>
> "Glorfindel smiled. 'I doubt very much,' he said, 'if your friends
> would be in danger if you were not with them!'"
> FotR, Flight to the Ford
With all due respect C., I don't think this is relevant to the point you're
trying to make.
> The road was not normally dangerous. There is extensive evidence
> of this and (thus far) nothing given to contradict it.
See my first response in this post...
> > Nazgul were surely not the only things that had to be defended
> > against on the road to Rivendell - Trolls, for example, and Men
> > such as Saruman's brigands in Bree.
>
> The trolls were a one-time and short lived anomaly decades before
> that. Saruman's brigands were newly arrived and few in number.
> I disagree... the Nazgul very much were the only things that had
> to be defended against. Gandalf, Glorfindel, Thorin's company,
> and Strider all seemed to feel that the road to Rivendell was
> normally quite safe.
Thorin's company was a decent-sized group of Dwarves, some of them
(presumably) skilled warriors, able to take responsibility for themselves
and their own business (usually). How do we know that "the Hobbit"'s Trolls
on the Road had been once-offs? Troll activity around Rivendell had been
responsible for the death of Aragorn's (Father? I think...)
> > The Nazgul were certainly armed with swords - the best defence
> > against a sword isn't a shield, it's another sword...
>
> The best defense against Nazgul may well have been fire. Note
> that when the Nazgul were about to attack he instructed the
> hobbits to get sticks ready to light to defend themselves... NOT
> the Dunedain crafted swords they bore which he knew very well to
> be 'wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor'. The fire
> was a better weapon for the situation.
Knives, however potent, would have to be brought well within
striking-distance of the Nazgul swords (Merry snuck up on the W-K in RotK)
to hit home, and the Hobbits weren't 'proven' in a fight. Fire may have
been the simplest improvised defence, in the circumstances (including his
lack of a decent weapon).
> > *He soon found out on his return from the 'trip' that things were
> > wrong - why-didn't-he-obtain-a-weapon*
>
> No opportunity? He didn't know he would find Frodo and be needing
> to face them? He knew that the enemy were Nazgul and thus swords
> were poor weapons against them?
The Enemy didn't *only* have Nazgul, if he was stuck in the gullet by a
Dunlending thug (for example), then he would just be as dead, and rueing his
lack of a sword... BTW, I presume bows and such would be exempt from the
'weapons-bane' effect of the Nazgul?
Daithi
Skylar Thompson
But Elves fought in the forests and plains, and a glowing sword there
would carry even further than in a labrythine cave. In the cave, a
least, one might be a few corners away from the orcs, and have time to
prepare a trap or ambush.
Skylar Thompson
>"David Flood" <nospam-...@corpoman.buyandsell.ie> wrote in message
>news:98bj9l$et5$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>> Go outside. Find your average 5-foot tall kid. Challenge him to
>> a mock 'swordfight', where you have a foot-long stick, and they
>> have one of, say, three feet.
>
>Sorry, beating children with a stick isn't my idea of fun. :)
Really, you should try it. It is my favourite past-time. If only
it were taught in PE. :)
>Length is important, but so are height... and skill... and weight
>of the blade. Otherwise a Zweihander would be an effective
>weapon against a rapier. I assure you... it is not.
That is true only if the person wielding the rapier can manage to
have the Zwëihander miss both himself/herself and the rapier,
because one successful blow from a Zwëihander would snap
the blade or stun/maim/kill the person.
>> the third quote above suggests that the King merely stood forward
>> to deliver the blow, rather than his companions taking fright...
>
>I don't see where it says anything one way or the other about
>why the other Nazgul did not attack. The sequence of events in
>the actual text certainly seems to indicate that they were daunted
>by the resistance.
>
>> If they had done so, rather than withdrawing and waiting for the
>> Morgul-knife to do its work, then the Ring surely would have been
>> captured, and Aragorn's firebrands would have done him no good...
>
>I disagree. If they were assured of capturing the Ring in an
>all out frontal assault then I think they would have MADE an all
>out frontal assault. Since the resistance, especially the fire
>and the invocation of Elbereth, was so stiff they withdrew after
>Frodo had been wounded... which SHOULD have assured success except
>that hobbits were much more resistant to that sort of thing than
>they could possibly have anticipated.
>
>
>
Skylar Thompson
>news:98bj9l$et5$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>> Go outside. Find your average 5-foot tall kid. Challenge him to
>> a mock 'swordfight', where you have a foot-long stick, and they
>> have one of, say, three feet.
>
>Sorry, beating children with a stick isn't my idea of fun. :)
Really, you should try it. It is my favourite past-time. If only
it were taught in PE. :)
>Length is important, but so are height... and skill... and weight
>of the blade. Otherwise a Zweihander would be an effective
>weapon against a rapier. I assure you... it is not.
That is true only if the person wielding the rapier can manage to
have the Zwëihander miss both himself/herself and the rapier,
because one successful blow from a Zwëihander would snap
the blade or stun/maim/kill the person.
--Skylar Thompson (sky...@attglobal.net)
Conrad Dunkerson
news:c1.2c.2ZbqDR$2Hy@rhino_house.attglobal.net...
> That is true only if the person wielding the rapier can manage to
> have the Zwëihander miss both himself/herself and the rapier,
> because one successful blow from a Zwëihander would snap
> the blade or stun/maim/kill the person.
Err... in order to snap a rapier (forcing it aside is more likely,
but whatever) the wielder of the Zweihander would have to do a
full force overhand or side swing - and the person with the rapier
would presumably take the opportunity presented by the wind up for
that to run them through... twice.
Öjevind Lång
>"Mnkohrz" <mnk...@gateway.net> wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, Turgon's sword Glamdring (later wielded by Gandalf)
>> was almost certainly forged in Valinor.
>
>"They [Glamdring and Orcrist] were made in Gondolin for the
>Goblin-wars."
>Elrond: TH, A Short Rest
>
>> I always wondered why Gandalf needed Elrond to decipher the
>> runes on it in The Hobbit.
>
>Out of Story Reason: When he wrote The Hobbit Tolkien did not
>intend Gandalf to be a Maia. His knowledge and abilities were
>considerable, but far less than what he was granted in LotR.
>
>In Story Reason: Gandalf didn't need Elrond to decipher the runes.
>He simply hadn't had an opportunity to read them (indeed he says
>that they can learn more about the swords when they can read the
>runes - implying that they could do so when time allowed).
This is a good story-eternal explanation, though of course, one then has to
disregard the fact that Tolkien's characters have the most amazing
propensity to postpone doing very urgent things (pursuing the Orcs that had
captured Merry and Pippin, for example, or getting out of Moria) in order to
sing songs for a fallen comrade or decipher the book relating the fate of
Balin's lost colony.
Öjevind
Conrad Dunkerson
> The Shire and Bree were both on the Road, and 'major' (in terms
> of late TA Eriador) centres of population, and *hence resistanct
> to attack*. Yet they had to be guarded.
The Shire was a large region, most of it nowhere near the road
and completely unsettled. Bree WAS on the road, but at the time
the hobbits set out it was 'guarded' by one old man at the West
Gate (presumably the same at other gates) and that only at night.
> Surely then there *could* be even greater peril for travellers
> on the unprotected, open Road?
Undoubtedly there COULD... after all, there WAS. It was just
consistently treated as unlikely.
> With all due respect C., I don't think this is relevant to the
> point you're trying to make.
How is Glorfindel saying that he doubts the others would be in
danger while travelling on the road if Frodo was not with them
irrelevant to my point that the road was not normally dangerous?
> Thorin's company was a decent-sized group of Dwarves, some of
> them (presumably) skilled warriors, able to take responsibility
> for themselves and their own business (usually).
I agree. And yet they journeyed from the Shire to Rivendell
along the road - and unarmed. Much as Aragorn seems to have
planned to do. I'd argue that Aragorn was just as much (more)
a skilled warrior and able to take responsibility for himself and
his own business.
> How do we know that "the Hobbit"'s Trolls on the Road had been
> once-offs?
"As I was saying I met two of Elrond's people. They were hurrying
along for fear of the trolls. It was they who told me that three
of them had come down from the mountains and settled in the woods
not far from the road: they had frightened everyone away from the
district, and they waylaid strangers."
TH, Roast Mutton
"He recalled Bilbo's account of his journey and the threatening
towers on the hills north of the Road, in the country near the
Troll's wood where his first serious adventure had happened.
Frodo guessed that they were now in the same region, and wondered
if by chance they would pass near the spot.
'Who lives in this land?' he asked. 'And who built these
towers? Is this troll-country?'
'No!' said Strider. 'Trolls do not build. No one lives in
this land.'"
FotR, Flight to the Ford
The arrival of the three trolls was an unusual occurence and
Strider was later quite confident that there would not be any
trolls about in the same area.
> Troll activity around Rivendell had been responsible for the
> death of Aragorn's (Father? I think...)
Aragorn's father was killed by Orcs, most likely further east by
the Misty Mountains. You are probably thinking of his grandfather,
who was killed by hill-trolls in the Coldfells north of
Rivendell... which IS listed as troll land, and the likely area
the trolls from TH had come from, but also not on the route they
were taking to Rivendell.
> Knives, however potent, would have to be brought well within
> striking-distance of the Nazgul swords (Merry snuck up on the W-K
> in RotK) to hit home, and the Hobbits weren't 'proven' in a
> fight. Fire may have been the simplest improvised defence, in
> the circumstances (including his lack of a decent weapon).
Ok, you've convinced me... none of these arguments pan out, the
route to Rivendell was horribly terribly dangerous, and Gandalf,
Glorfindel, Aragorn and Thorin were all mindless fools for thinking
otherwise. :)
More seriously... the fire brands held by the hobbits can't have
been all that much longer than the short swords they carried. If
nothing else Aragorn ought to have been able to use a firebrand
AND one of the hobbit's swords if he'd thought it would be wise to
do so. Instead he chose to fight with two firebrands. Any way
you look at it the evidence suggests that he felt a burning piece
of wood was a better weapon for the situation than a dunedain blade
'wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor'. You suggest
that this was only because the blades were small, but this seems
unlikely to me given the whole thing where they are destroyed on
impact.
> The Enemy didn't *only* have Nazgul, if he was stuck in the
> gullet by a Dunlending thug (for example), then he would just be
> as dead, and rueing his lack of a sword...
Yet there was no reason to expect a 'Dunlending thug' hundreds of
miles from their usual haunts. Nor should such be a threat to
Strider, even while relatively unarmed.
> BTW, I presume bows and such would be exempt from the 'weapons-
> bane' effect of the Nazgul?
Who can say? I'd suppose the bow would be safe, but the arrow is
an open question.
Russ
>> Length is important, but so are height... and skill... and weight
>> of the blade.
Errr. Shouldn't this thread get a tilde?
Russ
Raven
news:20010310115702...@nso-da.aol.com...
> >> Length is important, but so are height... and skill... and weight
> >> of the blade.
> Errr. Shouldn't this thread get a tilde?
I thought of no sexual connotations in this until you mentioned the
tilde. But...
"Alting er enten konkav eller -veks,
så alt hvad du drømmer er noget med sex."
One of Piet Hein's grooks. Translatable into English as
"Everything's either concave or -vex,
so all that you dream is something with sex."
Ravn.
Skylar Thompson
Are you thinking of the fencing rapier, or the battle rapier? I was
thinking of the battle rapier, which would not be forced aside
so easily, and would probably snap.
Chris Camfield
wrote:
>Quoth Mnkohrz <mnk...@gateway.net> in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>> Lastly, even a broken sword is not totally useless in a fight. The blade
>>was broken a foot below the hilt - this still left a good twelve inches that he
>>could use to slash or parry.
>
>But that sucker was heavy! I don't know how heady swords were, but
>surely it was in the broadsword family, not a slender epee. So it
>would have weighed some tens of pounds, right?
Uh, no. Not tens of pounds.
Chris
David Flood
> "David Flood" <nospam-...@corpoman.buyandsell.ie> wrote in message
> news:98d3ot$vcb$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > on the unprotected, open Road?
>
> Undoubtedly there COULD... after all, there WAS. It was just
> consistently treated as unlikely.
'Unlikely' isn't much of an insurance policy when the *Fate Of The World* is
at stake...
> > With all due respect C., I don't think this is relevant to the
> > point you're trying to make.
>
> How is Glorfindel saying that he doubts the others would be in
> danger while travelling on the road if Frodo was not with them
> irrelevant to my point that the road was not normally dangerous?
He was referring to the immediate pursuit of *the Nazgul* here, not to
general 'peril' of travelling the Road
> > Thorin's company was a decent-sized group of Dwarves, some of
> > them (presumably) skilled warriors, able to take responsibility
> > for themselves and their own business (usually).
>
> I agree. And yet they journeyed from the Shire to Rivendell
> along the road - and unarmed. Much as Aragorn seems to have
> planned to do. I'd argue that Aragorn was just as much (more)
> a skilled warrior and able to take responsibility for himself and
> his own business.
This was earlier in the Age (before Sauron really got going again), they
*did* run into major trouble (as Frodo did *three times*) and *they* weren't
carrying the Ruling Ring...
> > How do we know that "the Hobbit"'s Trolls on the Road had been
> > once-offs?
>
> "As I was saying I met two of Elrond's people. They were hurrying
> along for fear of the trolls. It was they who told me that three
> of them had come down from the mountains and settled in the woods
> not far from the road: they had frightened everyone away from the
> district, and they waylaid strangers."
> TH, Roast Mutton
>
> "He recalled Bilbo's account of his journey and the threatening
> towers on the hills north of the Road, in the country near the
> Troll's wood where his first serious adventure had happened.
> Frodo guessed that they were now in the same region, and wondered
> if by chance they would pass near the spot.
> 'Who lives in this land?' he asked. 'And who built these
> towers? Is this troll-country?'
> 'No!' said Strider. 'Trolls do not build. No one lives in
> this land.'"
> FotR, Flight to the Ford
This implies more that the Troll (-tribes?) were more or less nomadic - if
they didn't build, and just lived in caves. What Ar. was saying was that
no-one could be said to have *claimed* this land, by having permanent
settlements there...
> > Troll activity around Rivendell had been responsible for the
> > death of Aragorn's (Father? I think...)
>
> Aragorn's father was killed by Orcs, most likely further east by
> the Misty Mountains. You are probably thinking of his grandfather,
> who was killed by hill-trolls in the Coldfells north of
> Rivendell... which IS listed as troll land, and the likely area
> the trolls from TH had come from, but also not on the route they
> were taking to Rivendell.
I think the 'Hobbit' experience proved that there were exceptions to that
rule...
> > Knives, however potent, would have to be brought well within
> > striking-distance of the Nazgul swords (Merry snuck up on the W-K
> > in RotK) to hit home, and the Hobbits weren't 'proven' in a
> > fight. Fire may have been the simplest improvised defence, in
> > the circumstances (including his lack of a decent weapon).
>
> Ok, you've convinced me... none of these arguments pan out, the
> route to Rivendell was horribly terribly dangerous, and Gandalf,
> Glorfindel, Aragorn and Thorin were all mindless fools for thinking
> otherwise. :)
Glad you've agreed (and I can go back to mourning over queuing for nine
hours Friday night on Grafton Street here in Dublin, and *still* not getting
a ticket for U2 at Slane)
> More seriously... the fire brands held by the hobbits can't have
> been all that much longer than the short swords they carried. If
> nothing else Aragorn ought to have been able to use a firebrand
> AND one of the hobbit's swords if he'd thought it would be wise to
> do so. Instead he chose to fight with two firebrands.
The Nazgul just seem to have been wary of the firebrands, but they were
certainly 'brave' enough to wound the Ringbearer with the Morgul-knife (as
they obviously intended) and withdraw to wait for the inevitable...
> Any way
> you look at it the evidence suggests that he felt a burning piece
> of wood was a better weapon for the situation than a dunedain blade
> 'wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor'. You suggest
> that this was only because the blades were small, but this seems
> unlikely to me given the whole thing where they are destroyed on
> impact.
Yet the spells on one of those *very* blades was enough to undo the W-K's
nature...
> > The Enemy didn't *only* have Nazgul, if he was stuck in the
> > gullet by a Dunlending thug (for example), then he would just be
> > as dead, and rueing his lack of a sword...
>
> Yet there was no reason to expect a 'Dunlending thug' hundreds of
> miles from their usual haunts.
There was no reason expect Nazgul either, was there? Yet here they are...
> Nor should such be a threat to
> Strider, even while relatively unarmed.
Why? Did he 'know fung-fu"???
Daithi
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>
>Uh, no. Not tens of pounds.
Really? What does a broadsword weigh, anyway?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://home.uchicago.edu/~sbjensen/Tolkien/
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Conrad Dunkerson
news:MPG.1515f117f...@news.mindspring.com...
> Quoth Chris Camfield <ccam...@email.com> in
>> Uh, no. Not tens of pounds.
> Really? What does a broadsword weigh, anyway?
About three and a half pounds.
Blackhope
David Flood kirjoitti viestissä <98fvfp$e91$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> Nor should such be a threat to
>> Strider, even while relatively unarmed.
>
>Why? Did he 'know fung-fu"???
Hmm. Are you suggesting that Middle-Earth was the failed experiment
of the Matrix that Mr. Smith was talking about in one point?
Blackhope
Russ
bra...@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) writes:
>Really? What does a broadsword weigh, anyway?
Would that be an English boradsword or a Gothic broadsword?
I...I...don't know.
AHHGHHHHHHHHHHRRRGGGGGHHG!
Russ
Ermanna
David Flood wrote:
<shnip>
> There was no reason expect Nazgul either, was there? Yet here they are...
They're HERE?!? Quick, set the couch on fire and get out the Westernesse
blades!
<shnip>
> Daithi
Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight
Elbereth Gilthoniel!
Ron Christian
Skylar Thompson <sky...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>In <O1dq6.2100$Rb.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>>Sorry, beating children with a stick isn't my idea of fun. :)
>
>Really, you should try it. It is my favourite past-time. If only
>it were taught in PE. :)
It was when I was a kid. Geeze, kids today...
Ron
--
[www.europa.com/~ronc]
"Denying minorities their God-given right to vote is a terrible, terrible
crime. Unless they're Cuban immigrants, of course."
-- Rev. Jessie Jackson (paraphrased)
Mnkohrz
>From: bra...@mindspring.com (Stan Brown)
>Date: 3/11/01 7:31 PM Central Standard Time
>Really? What does a broadsword weigh, anyway?
According to Andrew Ayton in "Arms, Armour and Horses" (from "Medieval
Warefare: A History"), a broadsword weighed two to three pounds, although he
seems to imply that such swords possessed tapered blades rather than blades of
uniform width. I don't think this quite matches Tolkien's description of
Anduril. I'll do some more research and get back to you :)
Mnkohrz
David Flood
news:J50r6.66$OG2....@read2.inet.fi...
Look at the Hobbits. And the non-airworthy Balrogs. Now if they aren't
evidence of sloppy work, then nothing is :-)
Daithí
David Flood
news:3AACC585...@erols.com...
>
>
> David Flood wrote:
> <shnip>
> > There was no reason expect Nazgul either, was there? Yet here they
are...
>
> They're HERE?!? Quick, set the couch on fire and get out the Westernesse
> blades!
> <shnip>
You've got Westernesse blades??? (cue outrageous jealousy ;-)
These aren't like the boxes of dirt someone's trying to sell as 'Galadriel's
Gift', are they?
Daithí
Blackhope
Russ kirjoitti viestissä <20010312094155...@nso-da.aol.com>...
>AHHGHHHHHHHHHHRRRGGGGGHHG!
Wow, you met the Old Man From Scene 24 too.
Blackhope
Skylar Thompson
>In article <c1.2c.2ZbqBs$2Hx@rhino_house.attglobal.net>,
>Skylar Thompson <sky...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>In <O1dq6.2100$Rb.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>Sorry, beating children with a stick isn't my idea of fun. :)
>>
>>Really, you should try it. It is my favourite past-time. If only
>>it were taught in PE. :)
>
>It was when I was a kid. Geeze, kids today...
Hey, guess what! New unit in PE: floor hockey! Can you imagine
what is happening? :)
Ronald O. Christian
(Skylar Thompson) wrote:
>In <3aad1...@news.nwlink.com>, ro...@pacifier.com (Ron Christian) writes:
>>In article <c1.2c.2ZbqBs$2Hx@rhino_house.attglobal.net>,
>>Skylar Thompson <sky...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>In <O1dq6.2100$Rb.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, beating children with a stick isn't my idea of fun. :)
>>>
>>>Really, you should try it. It is my favourite past-time. If only
>>>it were taught in PE. :)
>>
>>It was when I was a kid. Geeze, kids today...
>
>Hey, guess what! New unit in PE: floor hockey! Can you imagine
>what is happening? :)
Let's see.... Hand long sticks to a bunch of kids, tell them to go out
and be competitive... Yep, I can imagine.
Ron
www.europa.com/~ronc
"If UN peacekeeping had been involved during the US civil war,
it'd still be going on today."
Ermanna
Of course not! The guy selling the dirt is _selling_. I'm using the
blades to
destroy Nazgul. And they're _real_.
> Daithí
Skylar Thompson
>On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:37:21 GMT, skylar@rhino_house.attglobal.net
>(Skylar Thompson) wrote:
>>Hey, guess what! New unit in PE: floor hockey! Can you imagine
>>what is happening? :)
>
>Let's see.... Hand long sticks to a bunch of kids, tell them to go out
>and be competitive... Yep, I can imagine.
Let's see. Out of a class of 32, there were seven ice packs
handed out, three people with epistaxses, two twisted ankles,
and numerous cuts, bruises, & abrasions. I received none, because
I prefer to be smart and stay as far away from the little moving
thingy that everyone is so excited about.
Flame of the West
Ron Christian wrote:
> "Denying minorities their God-given right to vote is a terrible, terrible
> crime. Unless they're Cuban immigrants, of course."
> -- Rev. Jessie Jackson (paraphrased)
Or American servicemen serving abroad.
--
-- FotW
"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."
-- Galadriel
Flame of the West
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
> > We have to assume some comments in Letters were simply off the
> > cuff remarks like anyone else who has ever written a letter in
> > his life.
>
> > And Aragorn not having a usable sword and merely carrying around
> > some shards is one of them.
> There may be reasons to question the logic of each of these (though
> I don't personally have a problem with either), but they were
> certainly not just 'off the cuff'. Both appeared more than once
> and over a period of years.
Could one of you give me a hint on where Tolkien writes about
the shards in the Letters? I just searched the Letters FAQ
for "sword" and "Strider" and came up empty.
Flame of the West
Russ wrote:
> (Sauron bringing the Ring to Numenor and carrying it back to Middle-earth as a
> spirit is another)
That's no stranger than the idea of a ghostly Nazgūl seizing the Ring,
as Sauron intended them to do. Since the Ring puts you half in the
unseen world, it makes sense that the Ring itself is also present there.
Russ
<jsol...@erols.com> writes:
>> "Denying minorities their God-given right to vote is a terrible, terrible
>> crime. Unless they're Cuban immigrants, of course."
>> -- Rev. Jessie Jackson (paraphrased)
>
>Or American servicemen serving abroad.
>
Or Republicans in the Florida panhandle
Russ
Russ
writes:
>> (Sauron bringing the Ring to Numenor and carrying it back to Middle-earth
>as a
>> spirit is another)
>
>That's no stranger than the idea of a ghostly Nazgūl seizing the Ring,
>as Sauron intended them to do. Since the Ring puts you half in the
>unseen world, it makes sense that the Ring itself is also present there.
>
That's different. The Nazgul were *half* in the unseen world. They clearly had
a corporeal element - even if invisible. OTOH, the physical body of Sauron was
killed in the destruction on Numenor. Thus his mere *spirit* had to carry the
Ring back to ME.
Russ
Lancelot appearing sideways
> The shards were probably kept in Rivendell for good keeping and
> Aragorn took them, as tokens of good faith to show to Frodo,
> just before he left Rivendell for Bree; he took them to bring
> Frodo so that he could bring him into the story so to speak.
Problem: Frodo wouldn't have known about Narsil without Gandalf's
letter, which Aragorn didn't anticipate.
It may be that Narsil was a badge of sorts for the heir of Isildur,
once he came of age, and tradition had it that he carry no other
sword (except when he was in disguise in GOndor and Rohan, of
course--maybe he wasn't "of age" then.) I wouldn't be surprised if he
had some other weapon, or other means of fighting. Or maybe he held
back from fighting the baddies and had his subjects do most of the
dirty work. ("Sorry, I'd love to help you guys, but it's this broken
sword, y'know....")
/
:@-) Scott
\
Lancelot appearing sideways
> Incidentally, Turgon's sword Glamdring (later wielded by Gandalf) was
> almost certainly forged in Valinor. I always wondered why Gandalf needed
> Elrond to decipher the runes on it in The Hobbit.
Maybe the forger had really bad handwriting, and Elrond, being a
healer, had something of a pharmacist's skill at reading it. :)
/
:@-) Scott
\