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

[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

[Thinlómien]

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.

I have to disagree with you, to some extent. Breelanders recognised rangers as foreigners, so what would be the use to try to stay hidden? I imagine all rangers carried a sword, so he would draw more attention to himself by not having one.

[Morwen]

I think it likely that the shards of Narsil usually remained in Rivendell and did not accompany Aragorn in during all his Third Age exploits. Practically speaking, a broken sword, as Aragorn himself recognises, is of no real use.

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."

Strider, FotR

Reading the last line I get the impression that Strider had only recently taken to carrying the sword around, as he senses his destiny approaching. Perhaps he was carrying it on that particular occasion as a talisman of sorts, taking the sword that separated Sauron from his Ring as he went in search of the Ringbearer.

[The Might]

Nope Morwen, I believe he was given both the Shards of Narsil as well as the Ring of Barahir as he left Rivendell and carried them around on his voyages through Middle-earth.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I imagine all rangers carried a sword, so he would draw more attention to himself by not having one.

That's where our imaginations differ then. I imagine the rangers as almost disregarded by the likes of Breelanders, as anonymous strangers traveling in ragged clothes, yet behind the scenes working hard to protect their ancestoral homeland. Perhaps they carried a light bow for hunting and a knife, much needed in the wilderness. I don't see them carrying around swords like Narsil no (it must have been a long and heavy sword, designed for fighting iron-clad enemies in open battle; does Aragorn swing it two-handedly btw?) and now, thinking about it, I don't believe JRRT envisioned Aragorn carrying the shards with him at all times. That is absurd, after all. He served in the armies of both Gondor and Rohan and presumably fought with them on several occations too. To be carrying around the shards of a useless sword in a real battle would be risking the lifes of his friends for the sentimental value of a relic. Would Aragorn do that? So I must agree with Morwen: the shards would've been locked away in uncle Elrond's safe on most of Aragorn's daring adventures.

Edit (x-posted w Gwathagor): The quote provided by Legate of Amon Lanc only really proves that Aragorn recieved the relics. It doesn't imply that he carried the them around, or that he did not.

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by skip spence

That's where our imaginations differ then. I imagine the rangers as almost disregarded by the likes of Breelanders, as anonymous strangers traveling in ragged clothes, yet behind the scenes working hard to protect their ancestoral homeland. Perhaps they carried a light bow for hunting and a knife, much needed in the wilderness. I don't see them carrying around swords like Narsil no (it must have been a long and heavy sword, designed for fighting iron-clad enemies in open battle; does Aragorn swing it two-handedly btw?) and now, thinking about it, I don't believe JRRT envisioned Aragorn carrying the shards with him at all times. That is absurd, after all. He served in the armies of both Gondor and Rohan and presumably fought with them on several occations too. To be carrying around the shards of a useless sword in a real battle would be risking the lifes of his friends for the sentimental value of a relic. Would Aragorn do that? So I must agree with Morwen: the shards would've been locked away in uncle Elrond's safe on most of Aragorn's daring adventures.

Edit (x-posted w Gwathagor): The quote provided by Legate of Amon Lanc only really proves that Aragorn recieved the relics. It doesn't imply that he carried the them around, or that he did not.

I also have a hard time seeing the greatest huntsman and traveler of the age lugging around a broken heirloom just because. This is a man who spent years in the wild, served in Gondor and Rohan, who ventured " far into the East and deep into the south". If you are going to spend years at a time away from home, making many a perilous journey, a broken object of no immediate use that would take up space and weigh you down is not the first object that you should pack.

I think that the handover that Legate and the Might refer to is symbolic : Aragorn has come of age, Elrond says you are now entitled to have these things. But I don't see that this automatically means that Aragorn was then required to take them along with him wherever he went. Why remove them after all from a place where they had been safe for centuries?

[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.