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

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well, you heard my opinion. I am not taking you yours, I am offering the view I stand by. The revelation were words by which the heritage was revealed and dedicated. Aragorn "took it" by hearing it. Then there was the physical act of actually taking the sword. By having it, Aragorn simply symbolized even in apparent way (and not just in his mind) his connection to the story, the continuity. I don't want to "downplay it" to symbolism, quite the opposite, I think that's actually the point - inside the tale - and it will show he takes it seriously (in the terms given by the tale).

[Groin Redbeard]

Isildur took the shards home with him. Shortly before Isildur was killed in the second year of the Third Age in the disaster at the Gladden Fields, the shards of Narsil were rescued by Ohtar, squire of Isildur. He took them to Imladris, where Isildur's youngest son Valandil was fostered.

The Shards of Narsil became one of the heirlooms of the Kings of Arnor, and after the Northern Kingdom was destroyed they remained an heirloom of the Rangers of the North. The sword was reforged in Rivendell in 3019 T.A. during the War of the Ring, in celebration of the rediscovery and capture of the Ring with which it had become associated as its symbolic antithesis.

Now it is my opinion that Aragorn would take this on his trips through the wild, maybe not the shards, but at least the hilt. This would serve as a reminder to him of his ancestory and an inspiration to his fellow rangers. Narsil certainly wasn't his primary weapon of course, I'm sure he carried another sword. It would serve as a proof of his heritage not only to himself but to those who met him. He could very easily prove who he was by the shards on him.

[Knight of Gondor]

How much sense does it make just from a perspective of respect for the heirloom itself? Lugging the shards around (are we to expect that they really fit like puzzle pieces into the sheath? Can you imagine the Elvish swordsmiths shaking the sheath up and down to get that laaaast stubborn shard out of there?) in the wild is ill treatment to the heirloom of the house of Isildur.

And for other reasons mentioned above (defense, practicality, etc.) I agree that this change in the movie was for the better.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Now it is my opinion that Aragorn would take this on his trips through the wild, maybe not the shards, but at least the hilt. This would serve as a reminder to him of his ancestory and an inspiration to his fellow rangers. Narsil certainly wasn't his primary weapon of course, I'm sure he carried another sword. It would serve as a proof of his heritage not only to himself but to those who met him. He could very easily prove who he was by the shards on him.

But then he could just as well do it with the ring, which does not weigh 20kg or something (Well, ok, since it's dwarf-make, and they're the best, 15kg).

But having the sword with him at all times sounds just like something he would do.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

However practical on impractical carrying all parts of the sword might have been, if Aragorn were to carry the sword with him, I say all of it. Otherwise, it won't have any sense.

[Maedhros_the_Tall]

If he was to take it, it would be all of the shards, or none, I can't imagine he would simply carry the hilt to remind him.

I agree with Knight of Gondor though, it just smacks of poor treatment of the heirloom of Isildur for Aragorn to carry it around with him the entire time when he is out in the wild, especially when it serves no purpose. As was said above, I always believed that the giving of the shards by Elrond, when Aragorn came of age, was purely a symbolic gesture, telling him who he was, where he came from and what he was destined to be.

Also, after Elrond told him, would he really need anything to remind him that he was the rightful King of the two kingdoms?? Be it the shards of Narsil or the ring of Barahir, would that really be necessary?

[Thinlómien]

You can fight with a broken sword, although it's different from fighting with a normal one.

Also, maybe Aragorn simply didn't want to carry any other sword but the sword of his ancestors that had special meaning for him. That would explain a lot. Okay, he definitely wielded a different sword in Gondor and Rohan, but I could see him not wanting to use any other sword but Narsil unless it was absolutely necessary. Thus, in the North, where those who could recognise the sword knew who he was anyway and the rest could not identify the legendary weapon, he had little reason (except for it being impractical) not to carry it.

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

You can fight with a broken sword, although it's different from fighting with a normal one.

Also, maybe Aragorn simply didn't want to carry any other sword but the sword of his ancestors that had special meaning for him. That would explain a lot. Okay, he definitely wielded a different sword in Gondor and Rohan, but I could see him not wanting to use any other sword but Narsil unless it was absolutely necessary. Thus, in the North, where those who could recognise the sword knew who he was anyway and the rest could not identify the legendary weapon, he had little reason (except for it being impractical) not to carry it.

Even if Aragorn were somehow minded to carry his broken sword with him to the far corners of Arda, would he be using it as a weapon? Wouldn't fighting with a broken sword or any broken weapon for that matter put you at a disadvantage when fighting against persons whose weapons are intact? Combat is one area where practicality has to trump sentiment. No fighting with broken swords unless absolutely necessary.