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

[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.

[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"...).

[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.