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

[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.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

If, as we are occasionally reminded in LotR, "luck" (and therefore "coincidence") is not the random occurrence that it is presumed to be, consider the following "coincidences" of the situation in Bree:

Aragorn is there on the lookout for Frodo, and just happens to find him listening through a hedge outside of Bree.

Butterbur just happens to forget to send the letter to Frodo, which contains vital information as to Strider's true identity.

That letter contains a verse about the "blade that was broken," which Aragorn admits is "not much use," but that "the time is coming when it will be forged anew."

The presumption is that Aragorn must cart this thing about with him all the time, or that it is kept in Rivendell. I tend to think that the latter reasoning comes from lingering impressions of Jackson's films. To me, the more logical presumption is that the shards were kept by all of Aragorn's forefathers. Note that in appendix A, it is said that Elrond "delivered to him the heirlooms of his house" when he told the fatherless Aragorn of his true identity and lineage. It would make more sense, I think, if the heirlooms of the Numenorean kings had been kept by their descendants, until Arathorn died untimely and the two-year-old Aragorn was taken into Elrond's house for fostering and protection. Once Aragorn took up the task as Chieftain of the Dunedain of Arnor, it would seem to me more fitting that he would leave such things in the care of his people when they were not on his person. If so, then it is quite possible that Aragorn, being a man foresighted, sensed that it was time for him to take Narsil with him to Rivendell, where he ultimately hoped to take Frodo and the Ring. He knew that events were moving toward some crisis, and said as much when he stated that the time was coming for Narsil to be reforged. As was already said, he felt his destiny upon him, and acted accordingly -- else there would have been little point in taking with him a sword he acknowledges as useless.

And if he had made a habit of this for a long time, it would have been dangerous. Imagine how Denethor would have felt about Thorongil if it had been discovered that he was toting about the shards of Narsil! Or, if in his travels, Aragorn had been slain by orcs when he was alone, thus either losing the heirloom, or having it fall into the hands of the Enemy (who might then put two and two together and realize that he had managed to kill a still living heir of Isildur). No, I do tend to think that Aragorn was moved to take the sword from where it was kept with his people, so that it would be with him Rivendell to be proof to Boromir (and others) as to his identity, and so that it would at last be reforged. If it had already been in Rivendell, there would've been no reason for him to have it with him, and to me, it just doesn't make sense that he would cart it about out of habit.

Just a bit of post-vacation thought.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

To me, the more logical presumption is that the shards were kept by all of Aragorn's forefathers. Note that in appendix A, it is said that Elrond "delivered to him the heirlooms of his house" when he told the fatherless Aragorn of his true identity and lineage. It would make more sense, I think, if the heirlooms of the Numenorean kings had been kept by their descendants, until Arathorn died untimely and the two-year-old Aragorn was taken into Elrond's house for fostering and protection.

Yes, that's right. I always thought it was that way. And my opinion on the films is something best left asleep

And if he had made a habit of this for a long time, it would have been dangerous. Imagine how Denethor would have felt about Thorongil if it had been discovered that he was toting about the shards of Narsil!

Well that remains a question, however I believe he may have as well kept it somewhere hidden (and cf. my post above). This is on the edge, though. But then, being so long so far ("in the lands of Rhun and Harad..."), one would really wonder what about the

Or, if in his travels, Aragorn had been slain by orcs when he was alone, thus either losing the heirloom, or having it fall into the hands of the Enemy (who might then put two and two together and realize that he had managed to kill a still living heir of Isildur).

Of course, then he'll be really happy, as he spent lots of time trying to find out whether any heirs still exist. But here we must once again grasp the logic of the tale. It simply could not have happened. Or, if even that happened and he were slain and the shards taken, there would have needed to be some other heir elsewhere, and the shards will be re-gained (very probably, the Orcs who would slay him will not even have the chance to return to... wherever they'd come from, or let's say, had that happened for example in Moria, then some Fellowship who will travel this way a long time after that, will find a strange skeleton with broken sword - the Orcs of course ignored some useless broken sword and took only what seemed valuable - and suddenly one of them, young Arasomething, would suddenly yell "Oh, it must be my relative"...).

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Of course, then he'll be really happy, as he spent lots of time trying to find out whether any heirs still exist. But here we must once again grasp the logic of the tale. It simply could not have happened. Or, if even that happened and he were slain and the shards taken, there would have needed to be some other heir elsewhere, and the shards will be re-gained (very probably, the Orcs who would slay him will not even have the chance to return to... wherever they'd come from, or let's say, had that happened for example in Moria, then some Fellowship who will travel this way a long time after that, will find a strange skeleton with broken sword - the Orcs of course ignored some useless broken sword and took only what seemed valuable - and suddenly one of them, young Arasomething, would suddenly yell "Oh, it must be my relative"...).

Must we now?

I understand that of course this could not happen because then there would be no story, but I doubt that one could truly use this as an argument.

When we read the story we cannot include such things, that would make the story close to pointless. Just like the characthers within the book we must assume that there is a definite possibility that Aragorn could be killed in combat, so would he bring these shards with him abroad?

He clearly did it in his "homelands", but I would argue that the dangers where lesser in that area and he actually did not need much more than skill and a long knife (which is what Narsil more or less was) also there were other rangers around. Now when he goes abroad it is hard to say if he would risk carrying it to unknown lands, where he could loose it. I deffinitly think that he would not bring it to Gondor, simply because to many people knew what it was and he was not yet ready to assume the role of king.

[skip spence]

Like I said earlier, I don't think Aragorn would have brought Narsil with him on his travels as it would have hindered him much more than helped him. Since I can't remember any mention of permanent dwelling-places of the Rangers, I've assumed that Narsil was kept in Rivendell because it was the closest thing Aragorn had to a home and therefore the natural place to keep your stuff. Yet, I can't see the Rangers living a fully nomadic existence either, with simple camps in wilderness as their only option. Perhaps they did have a home base somewhere in the old North Kingdom, to where they could withdraw or gather at need? If this was the case, the resoning of Ibrin makes perfect sense: Aragorn felt that the time had come for Narsil to be forged anew, and brought it with him to Rivendell for this explicit reason.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

Must we now?

I understand that of course this could not happen because then there would be no story, but I doubt that one could truly use this as an argument.

When we read the story we cannot include such things, that would make the story close to pointless. Just like the characthers within the book we must assume that there is a definite possibility that Aragorn could be killed in combat, so would he bring these shards with him abroad?

Well, we mustn't, but I think we should. It were not of that concern if we were talking about some random warrior, or Legolas, or Gimli, or even Boromir, but here is the heir of Isildur, which has its importance for the Third-Age Middle-Earth and the final conclusion of the battle with Sauron. I originally wanted to write "heir of the ancient line of Elros", however maybe the Isildur thing is more important in this particular case, although it's of far smaller importance overall. But to use very daring words, the fate of this line is so important for the fate of Arda, that it could not have gone otherwise. I.e. the line of Isildur simply could not have died out. No way. The other option would be also for Sauron to win, then it will maybe turn into a more "global" scale and you will have "dark Middle-Earth" and "bright Undying Lands", and that will be it. But the victory over Sauron (even though achieved by some Hobbits) needed the Return of the King as its part. For the tale of Arda overall on the other hand is important the line of the descendants of Lúthien and Eärendil and all these folks, simply the representatives of the Elf-Men union. In the case Aragorn died, the reunion of the two lines again as we see it in the case of Aragorn and Arwen wouldn't have been possible anymore (unless there was another heir, like I said above), so Arwen and Elrond, the last of the other descendants of Beren and Lúthien, would have left Middle-Earth and the "dark ME" scenario I outlined above would have taken place.
Or in other words: letting the descendants of Eärendil die out would be as much of a blow to the fate of Arda as if you, let's say, took away the Sun (although even that, in fact, in M-E isn't that much of a problem, as we know from the Silmarillion). Simply: Aragorn was not just "a fella like everyone else" - in a certain way. Now I am aware of the fact that this can be easily misinterpretated and I can already see someone protesting "don't let Aragorn show himself off over some 'ordinary' Boromir or whoever", but that's by no means how I meant it; rather let's say, it is similar to the tale of the Silmarils: they were also "just some stones", but the fate of Arda was bound in them. Analogically it's with the lineage of Eärendil.
I hope it's understandable what I had in mind.

Originally Posted by skip spence

Since I can't remember any mention of permanent dwelling-places of the Rangers, I've assumed that Narsil was kept in Rivendell because it was the closest thing Aragorn had to a home and therefore the natural place to keep your stuff. Yet, I can't see the Rangers living a fully nomadic existence either, with simple camps in wilderness as their only option. Perhaps they did have a home base somewhere in the old North Kingdom, to where they could withdraw or gather at need?

Actually yes, I believe there was supposed to be something like a permanent settlement south of Rivendell. However someone else would have to supply what exactly it was - I think it's from HoME.

[Groin Redbeard]

I agree with you, skip. It would seem most likely that the rangers would have a base where they could all meet, like the forbidden pool in Ithilien.

It has been mentioned, in this thread, that Narsil is a bunch of little fragments that Aragorn couldn't possibly carry around. I always pictured Narsil as being broken in two, it would certainly make a lot more sense that way. If Narsil was a bunch of broken pieces, why not call it "the blade that was shattered", or something to that extent. Do not underestimate the skill of it's forger, Telchar. When Beren broke Techar's knige, Angrist, it didn't shatter, it merely broke; I don't see how it would be any different with Sauron.

[Morwen]

Well, even this could be questioned, I believe, when it comes to Middle-Earth. After all, Sauron WAS defeated with the broken sword.

Sauron's "defeat" by the broken sword is an exceptional circumstance. If you're in the middle of a battle and a broken sword is what you have to hand then you use it. If one has any choice in the matter then a whole sword is preferable. If that were not true in Middle Earth then I can't imagine why the Elves bothered to reforge the sword that was broken.

And then, the other thing is - how many enemies armed with an actual weapon, the more a weapon like a sword, Aragorn met in the Wilderness? Not speaking about Gondor and Rohan, I would side with Lommy there and think that he probably used a different sword there, also for the reason that he should not reveal tokens of his heritage in these places yet. He probably was given something by the king/Steward, first he probably got some "basic weapon" like every warrior, later, he may have been personally given something better for his bravery and good service. Anyway, back to what I said, in the Wilderness his main enemies were probably wild animals and from time to time, on longer journeys, it might have been an Orc (probably badly armed), rarely a troll or something like that (who likely did not use any weapon). Let me also point out that I don't think the rangers actually fight that much: or, of course they do, but their main purpose is "protective", the mere presence of them has some effect. They monitor the area and therefore the enemies don't even come there. And only when, let's say, a band of goblins gets too close to human settlements, a larger group of Rangers appears and drives them off.

Apart from Gondor and Rohan, Aragorn's wanderings were not limited to the wilderness. He spent time in the East and deep South "exploring the hearts of Men, both evil and good, and uncovering the plots and devices of the servants of Sauron" (LotR, Appendix A) These sound like tasks where a whole sword might come in handy.

As for his wilderness tasks, my take on these is precisely why I don't see Aragorn carrying Narsil along as matter of course on every journey he ever made. His tasks would have likely been arduous, involving long journeys where he would need to travel fast and therefore want to travel light. I can't see him taking something along that would not be of any use and might perhaps be a hindrance.

The idea that he needs to sit and look at the shards from time to time to remind him of who is doesn't strike me as something Book Aragorn would need. Movie Aragorn maybe. But I don't think that Book Aragorn needed that kind of constant reminder of his purpose. Nor do I think that it lessens the significance of an object if the owner doesn't carry it with him everywhere. I strikes me that this depiction of Aragorn's behaviour is Gollum like, or Ringbearer like perhaps, this idea that you need to have an object constantly near you and be reassured or fortified by its presence.

Of course, then he'll be really happy, as he spent lots of time trying to find out whether any heirs still exist. But here we must once again grasp the logic of the tale. It simply could not have happened. Or, if even that happened and he were slain and the shards taken, there would have needed to be some other heir elsewhere, and the shards will be re-gained (very probably, the Orcs who would slay him will not even have the chance to return to... wherever they'd come from, or let's say, had that happened for example in Moria, then some Fellowship who will travel this way a long time after that, will find a strange skeleton with broken sword - the Orcs of course ignored some useless broken sword and took only what seemed valuable - and suddenly one of them, young Arasomething, would suddenly yell "Oh, it must be my relative"...).

... or the author could avoid all of that and simply have him leave Narsil at home.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Well, we mustn't, but I think we should. It were not of that concern if we were talking about some random warrior, or Legolas, or Gimli, or even Boromir, but here is the heir of Isildur, which has its importance for the Third-Age Middle-Earth and the final conclusion of the battle with Sauron. I originally wanted to write "heir of the ancient line of Elros", however maybe the Isildur thing is more important in this particular case, although it's of far smaller importance overall. But to use very daring words, the fate of this line is so important for the fate of Arda, that it could not have gone otherwise. I.e. the line of Isildur simply could not have died out. No way. The other option would be also for Sauron to win, then it will maybe turn into a more "global" scale and you will have "dark Middle-Earth" and "bright Undying Lands", and that will be it. But the victory over Sauron (even though achieved by some Hobbits) needed the Return of the King as its part. For the tale of Arda overall on the other hand is important the line of the descendants of Lúthien and Eärendil and all these folks, simply the representatives of the Elf-Men union. In the case Aragorn died, the reunion of the two lines again as we see it in the case of Aragorn and Arwen wouldn't have been possible anymore (unless there was another heir, like I said above), so Arwen and Elrond, the last of the other descendants of Beren and Lúthien, would have left Middle-Earth and the "dark ME" scenario I outlined above would have taken place.
Or in other words: letting the descendants of Eärendil die out would be as much of a blow to the fate of Arda as if you, let's say, took away the Sun (although even that, in fact, in M-E isn't that much of a problem, as we know from the Silmarillion). Simply: Aragorn was not just "a fella like everyone else" - in a certain way. Now I am aware of the fact that this can be easily misinterpretated and I can already see someone protesting "don't let Aragorn show himself off over some 'ordinary' Boromir or whoever", but that's by no means how I meant it; rather let's say, it is similar to the tale of the Silmarils: they were also "just some stones", but the fate of Arda was bound in them. Analogically it's with the lineage of Eärendil.
I hope it's understandable what I had in mind.

So you managed to list the linage of Aragorn and why it is important story wise, but I am afraid it won't help your case.
It does not change the fact that you cannot read the text of LotR knowing that Aragorn cannot die, simply because it would be the death of the story it self. It was only from the Tolkiens point of view that Aragorn could not die, for everybody else it have to be a possibility. You are cannot use an argument from a writers perspective to explain why people act in sertain ways within the text, it is quite simply wrong to do so.

If we accept this kind of argument it opens up a whole lot of trouble, one is that we would have to shut down every thread about why the charachters did sertain things and seek all answers in the stor-line.

About the Silmarils: I don't know why you use them as an example, yes the fate of Arda was bound to them, just like the fate of middle-earth was bound to Aragorn. The tale of Aragorn went well, but the one of the silmarils showed that it could end up both good and bad. . .only one of them made it to the sky.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Maedhros_the_Tall

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?

Not necessary, however, there surely may have been times when he was in doubt about his task and such and at these times, having the sword (and the other things) physically as a reminder may have been of help. But mainly, I don't even think it would be necessary for him, but "this is simply the way it is done". Just like that.

Originally Posted by Morwen

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.

Well, even this could be questioned, I believe, when it comes to Middle-Earth. After all, Sauron WAS defeated with the broken sword. And then, the other thing is - how many enemies armed with an actual weapon, the more a weapon like a sword, Aragorn met in the Wilderness? Not speaking about Gondor and Rohan, I would side with Lommy there and think that he probably used a different sword there, also for the reason that he should not reveal tokens of his heritage in these places yet. He probably was given something by the king/Steward, first he probably got some "basic weapon" like every warrior, later, he may have been personally given something better for his bravery and good service. Anyway, back to what I said, in the Wilderness his main enemies were probably wild animals and from time to time, on longer journeys, it might have been an Orc (probably badly armed), rarely a troll or something like that (who likely did not use any weapon). Let me also point out that I don't think the rangers actually fight that much: or, of course they do, but their main purpose is "protective", the mere presence of them has some effect. They monitor the area and therefore the enemies don't even come there. And only when, let's say, a band of goblins gets too close to human settlements, a larger group of Rangers appears and drives them off.