Aragorn's Weapon

Well...I dont know...I guess we can be on the same side. It looks foul but it seems fair.

I have found a Fantasy novel in which one of the main characters goes unarmed for a while -The Lord of the Rings with Aragorn. He does get into close combat with some of the most dangerous creatures of his world (the Nazgul), and he comes out OK. The road from Rivendell to Bree (the road I think he traveled) would have been a Cake-Walk for Aragorn. Does anybody here really think it would have been possible for the enemy to ambush him while he was alone? Aside from Arwen, nobody in Middle Earth posessed the craft to sneak-up on our Ranger Chieftain (at least none of the bad creatures had that sort of craft). From what I read in the books, Aragorn fully expected to accompany Gandalf back to Rivendell. Gandalf was one of the most powerful beings in Middle-Earth, so coming back along the road also would have been relatively easy, especially if everybody was mounted. And let's not forget, when Aragorn left Rivendell the world was a much merrier place. There was no rumor of the Nazgul, and Saruman was still considered an ally. When Aragorn reached Bree and heard the bad news from Gildor, I'm sure he wished that he had brought a real sword. In this sense, it seems that HLGStrider is right, Aragorn made a bad, illogical, shortsighted decision. In hindsight, Gandalf's decision to visit Saruman when he already had misgivings about the White Wizard was also poor, so I guess we'll just have to live with the fact that the Good Professor gave us fallible characters.

In the most respectful way, no insult intended, since I consider you to be one of the finest minds on this board--a U vs U-H stalwart--perhaps led down the primrose path by the Ugluk "incident"--but still terrifcally talented and a model for young posters. So just to reiterate that this is not an insult of any kind:

I completely disagree. Read Aragorns own words below about this "peaceful" countryside. I, and perhaps the other paragon of posters, Grond, certainly would interpret the following quite differently. Aragorn would NEVER travel unarmed with this undertanding. He would never ASSUME that Gandalf would take care of him.

- If Gondor, Boromir, has been a stalwart tower, we have played another part. Many evil things there are that your strong walls and bright swords do not stay. You know little of the lands beyond your bounds. Peace and freedom, do you say? The North would have known them little but for us.
Fear would have destroyed them. But when dark things come from the houseless hills, or creep from sunless woods, they fly from us. What roads
would any dare to tread, what safety would there be in quiet lands, or in the homes of simple men at night, if the Dúnedain were asleep, or were all
gone into the grave? - 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.

Click to expand...

Well, I think that the heart of where we disagree is where you say that 'Aragorn would NEVER travel unarmed with this understanding.' I think that I'd phrase it 'Aragorn should NEVER travel unarmed with this understanding.'
It does not seem to be in Aragorn's character to do such a thing, yet apparently Tolkien had him do it. Aragorn never draws a weapon in anticipation of an attack, and when he is forced to fight he does so with two fire-brands. From all the information in the books Aragorn went to Bree to meet Gandalf, and he did so unarmed, having conceded to Sam that the hilt-shard of Narsil was 'not much use' (though doubtlessly a choice weapon for removing Rings from Dark Lords, weakened or comatose). I completely agree that Aragorn should not have been unarmed, but from all information in the books, he was. So I am trying to rationalize within the books why this would be the case, when he clearly uses weapons to defend the Shire. What I see is that immediately after learning from Gandalf that the Great Ring has been found, and that it will be leaving the Shire in September, Aragorn goes away on 'business of his own'. I assume this means that he's getting things in order for his claim to the throne of Gondor, and one of the things he's doing might be to get Narsil. Perhaps he goes back to Rivendell and expects them to re-forge it on the spot, but the Elven-smithies are booked through December. Who knows. But if Aragorn desired to move from Rivendell to Bree without confrontation, then he had the wood-skill to do it. He would then be able to safely travel unarmed. Of course, this would mean that he would be giving up his duty as protector of Bree and the Shire (bad reason #1), and he would be forced to use branches if he ran into enemies like the Black Riders (bad reason #2). Despite both of the reasons not to go unarmed, Aragorn made a bad choice and went to Bree unarmed. I'm not trying to say he made a good choice in doing this, I'm trying to see if the text gives us any reason for him to do this. My explanation is the only reason I (and apparently V of K and HLGStrider) can think of to rationalize his decision, and I agree with you, it's not a very good reason, given that he later get's cought without a weapon.

I understand your flailing about for a rationale. I think it was The Craw in "Get Smart" who said "Every Cookie, Not Necessary Have Fortune."

To further aid to the cornfusion, when Aragorn is told that Narsil can not be "reforged-while-he-waits," rather than leave it in Rivendell for future pick-up, he takes out whatever sword he had been using (assuming he hadnt had Narsil in his scabbard for the past 67 years) and puts in Narsil saying, "I am as giddy as a school boy. Its true I have been kicking Evil butt for 67 years between Rivendell and Bree, but not only do I feel unaccountably lucky today, but also I would like to have my new bestest friend, Narsil, with me while I go meet a couple of strange hobbits who are carrying the most important and dangerous artifact in Middle Earth. Whoopee, here I goes."

Here's my "rationale." JRRT saw in his literary minds eye, the scene of Strider in Bree amazing the hobbits with his hilt-shard, fulfilling the words in the poem. Despite PJ thoughts about the movie (and he is probably right), the scene works in the book. Thats as long as we dont dig too deep and ask what unmentioned weapon he really is using. However based upon his subsequent actions along the trail to Rivendell, it doesnt appear as if he has an unmentioned weapon.

Therefore we are just left with:

1. flailing rationales.
2. an itty bitty logical hole.

Neither 1 nor 2 are satisfactory.

Or equally unsatisfactory no.3

He had a weapon which unaccountably JRRT failed to mention, and which he failed to use if there happened to be a large stick around.

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
Or equally unsatisfactory no.3

He had a weapon which unaccountably JRRT failed to mention, and which he failed to use if there happened to be a large stick around.

Click to expand...

\



Yes but against the ulairi swords or bows would have been useless. Look what happened 2 frodo's knife? Fire was the best optoin and the thing most likely 2 scare them.

If Aragorn had another weapon, why would he intimidate the Hobbits with a sword which later proved to be broken? Why not intimidate them with a useful weapon, which you could swing in the air? Narsil itself had been hidden up to that point. How many hidden weapons was Aragorn in the habit of carrying?

As for Aragorn necessarily having a bow for hunting, is everybody here from the city? The only thing that Aragorn would be likely to kill with a bow is something large like a deer. This would be far too large for the four hobbits and the pony to carry, so most of the meat would be left to rot- doesn't sound much like Aragorn's MO. He probably was referring to his ability to trap something like a rabbit- much as our good friend Smeagol later does for the Hobbits in Ithilien.

Originally posted by aragil
If Aragorn had another weapon, why would he intimidate the Hobbits with a sword which later proved to be broken? Why not intimidate them with a useful weapon, which you could swing in the air? Narsil itself had been hidden up to that point. How many hidden weapons was Aragorn in the habit of carrying?

As for Aragorn necessarily having a bow for hunting, is everybody here from the city? The only thing that Aragorn would be likely to kill with a bow is something large like a deer. This would be far too large for the four hobbits and the pony to carry, so most of the meat would be left to rot- doesn't sound much like Aragorn's MO. He probably was referring to his ability to trap something like a rabbit- much as our good friend Smeagol later does for the Hobbits in Ithilien.

Click to expand...

Firstly aragorn didn't use his broken sword for intimidation rather as to prove a point "all that is gold does not glitter..........". He probably didn't only use his sword for hunting but for other means also.

Aragorn does the "intimidation" bit a moment before revealing his hilt-shard:

How do we know you are the Strider that Gandalf speaks about? - he demanded. - You never mentioned Gandalf, till this letter came out. You might be a play-acting spy, for all I can see, trying to
get us to go with you. You might have done in the real Strider and took his clothes. What have you to say to that?
'that you are a stout fellow, - answered Strider; - but I am afraid my only answer to you, Sam Gamgee, is this. If I had killed the real Strider, I could kill you. And I should have killed you already without so much talk. If I was after the Ring, I could have it - NOW!
He stood up, and seemed suddenly to grow taller. In his eyes gleamed a light, keen and commanding. Throwing back his cloak, he laid his hand on the hilt of a sword that had hung concealed by his side. They did not dare to move. Sam sat wide-mouthed staring at him dumbly.
- But I am the real Strider, fortunately, - he said, looking down at them with his face softened by a sudden smile. - I am Aragorn son of Arathorn; and if by life or death I can save you, I will.

Click to expand...

Later he pulls the hilt-shard out to "explain" the passage in Gandalf' letter.

- Did the verses apply to you then? - asked Frodo. - I could not make out what they were about. But how did you know that they were in Gandalf's letter, if you have never seen it?
- I did not know, - he answered. - But I am Aragorn, and those verses go with that name. - He drew out his sword, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt. - Not much use is it, Sam? - said Strider. - But the time is near when it shall be forged anew.

Click to expand...

How about this? He used Narsil as his "weapon" because, being a foot-long, it was easily concealed? Not much good in a fight, but just great for hiding under a cloak.

Originally posted by Beleg Strongbow
Firstly aragorn didn't use his broken sword for intimidation rather as to prove a point "all that is gold does not glitter..........". He probably didn't only use his sword for hunting but for other means also.

Click to expand...

Harad already beat me to the response to the intimidation part of your quote. Pray tell how one hunts with a sword chopped off 1 foot from the hilt? And, again, for what exactly does one use a chopped off sword? Either Aragorn had another weapon that J. R. R. T. failed to tell us about and which Aragorn forgot about using or we have a uncrowned king walking around dangerous wilderness basically unarmed.

It is an inconsistency I can live with, because like Harad said, it works. But I wish a better explanation had been provided by the author.

Originally posted by Harad
Aragorn does the "intimidation" bit a moment before revealing his hilt-shard:



How about this? He used Narsil as his "weapon" because, being a foot-long, it was easily concealed? Not much good in a fight, but just great for hiding under a cloak.

Click to expand...

I think you're being sarcastic, but I can't tell for sure from your tone of typing. Nevertheles...

No sale. In addition to the foot of blade, there would be another foot or more of hilt, plus maybe 2 to 3 more feet of empty scabbard (or not-empty, if he carted around the other piece of Narsil too. It was just two pieces in the book; the movie turned it into a whole slew of fragments).

I suppose he might have had a special "shard scabbard" made just for the hilt shard... but that would look awfully stupid.


Okay, so, I think most people in this thread agree that Aragorn would have carried other weapons at various times. But what weapons? We know he hunts, and unless he's got a 12-gauge someplace, that probably means a bow. We have no explicit mentions of any other weapons, though. What do you think a Ranger and Royalty-In-Exile would use? Bolo? Boomerang? Blow-gun? Broken Bottle? Bar of soap carved to look like a derringer?

a short sword in his belt like Isildur. a guess only

Somebody who prefers to remain anonymous pointed out to me that Warriors, samurai, and the like do on occasion carry 2 swords in 2 scabbards, since swords sometimes break in combat.

However why would Aragorn conceal the Narsil-Shard in Bree, if he had another full length sword as well? I have heard of "concealed weapons" but a 4 foot (1.22 m) long sword?

As important as Aragorn was, his "backup" blade should have been notable...maybe not 1000s (?) of years of heritage like Narsil, but still not off-the-shelf of the Bill Butterbar's Bree Blacksmith.

-s

Originally posted by Grond
And, again, for what exactly does one use a chopped off sword?

Click to expand...

I think that we already know- the hilt shard is perfect for slicing off the ring finger of any Dark Lord you might come across in Eriador. It was sort of the Swiss Army Knife of it's day.

I'm still fairly convinced that Aragorn was in the habit of carrying around another sword before the trip to Bree (but not during said trip). Since he didn't need to re-train with Anduril, he was probably used to using a similar sword (this would mean that the eket was not his primary weapon). I'm sure that he carried a bow, being a Ranger (the Rangers of Ithilien had longbows, spears and swords). However, if he had been bearing one during the trip from Bree to Rivendell, I tend to think Tolkien would have described him as stalking with it, especially while in the presence of the Nazgul. Remember that Legolas was able to slay the mount of the Nazgul at the Anduin with his bow, and this probably saved the Fellowship. If Aragorn had a bow it would have been prudent for him to at least have it out when the Nazgul were in the area.

It appears to me that once the Ring was found that Aragorn forsook all weapons save for Narsil. If there were other weapons they would have been both described and used in the conflict with the Nazgul. Of course, that is just IMHO.

BTW, its wrong to think that no sword would be useful against the Nazgul. Merry's sword was VERY useful...and he happened to be carrying it at Weathertop!

Aragorn, being the heir of the Northern Kingdom should ALSO have had access to weapons that were effective against the Witch King, the Mortal Enemy of the Northern Kingdom. It would be a little odd if the only weapon surviving from that kingdom was the one found in that particular barrow that TB cleaned out.

There is a time in every writing project when the writer is torn between the dramatic and the sensible, I believe. Where he really wants the main male character to fall on his knees and profess his love for the main female character despite that he disapproving father is in the room, or when he wants the hidden secretive spy to reveal himself to the lovely maiden, despite that it will blow his cover and he has no reason to believe that she is on his side other then her beautiful blue eyes...

or where the great warrior carries a broken sword just because it looks good in that one scene...

I'm not saying there isn't a logical reason we could find if we searched forever, but that just might've been Tolkien's reason... Some things might not make sense, but they sure help plot movement and dramatics.

(By the way, I have been guilty of this nonsense for the sake of dramatics more often then not in my own work... Blah... Wonder why I never get anything published?)

One more try:

Maybe Aragorn felt ongoing shame over the role that his ancestor, Isildur, played in Sauron's revival. Therefore he handicapped himself by using a 1-foot hilt-shard to constantly pay a price for the ancient misdeed. This flies in the face somewhat of his apparent admiration for Isildur: "I am Isildur's heir, not Isildur himself." But we are down to the dregs in the theory department.

I agree with HLGStrider...

It is a really dramatic scene...

And I agree with Harad...

We just don't have any good theories to support it.