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

[Elmo]

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

[Eönwë]

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

[Gollum the Great]

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

[The Might]

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

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

[skip spence]

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

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by skip spence

but it would still give people the impression he was armed with a heavy battlesword. And I don't think it was commonplace for people carrying such around in their everyday business. As his "job" as a ranger involved keeping a low profile, is would be unwise to draw attention to himself like this.

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

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

edit: xed with skip spence

[Mithalwen]

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

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

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

[Rumil]

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

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

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

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

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Don't faint everyone but I think that this is one of the things the film were right to change (and you don't catch me saying that very often). .

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