Where is Aeglos?

[davem]

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

[Rumil]

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

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

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

[Mithadan]

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

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

[zxcvbn]

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Rumil

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

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

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

[Gordis]

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

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

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

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Gordis

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

[davem]

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

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

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

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Rumil

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

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

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

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

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

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

[davem]

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