Enchantment or advancement.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Eönwë raises an interesting point about mass production. I would like to look into this a little.

Mordor and Angband mass produce weaponry, armour and soldiers for the wars. How do the elves and men answer this? With enchanted weapons, one-of-a-kinds and heroes, the like of whom may never be seen again. Both are things of war, but I do think they are different views of war.

Sauron and Melkor in their mass production and floods of soldiers represent the basic destructive nature of war. The Dragons breathe fire, laying waste to the lands, the Balrogs go around- um- Balroging. Orcs hack down trees, not always to feed the fires of Isenguard or anything. All the destructive and horrific side of war.

The elves, with their enchanted weapons and special captains, represent a more heroic side of war. The valour and bravery, the fight against evil, you might say. A very idyllic view, as has been argues in other threads, but I think Tolkien is trying to look at things in two different ways and he is perfectly entitled to.

Perhaps Tolkien saw the mechanised way of producing weaponry (especially) as focussing too much on destruction. The less work that goes into the creation of something, the easier it may be to use it to destroy. Perhaps.

That's not to say swords like Anduril were not used for killing. They were. But there is something about those thousands of crude blades dropping off the production lines that makes it seem like killing is only a small matter.

In some cases, enchantment requires something of the self to go into the object. As has been discussed. If Anduril has something of Aragon within it, along with Isildur and Elendil, it may make the killing process a much more personal thing. Whereas with the blade off the production line, it may seem more functional.

I don't know... Maybe?

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Perhaps Tolkien saw the mechanised way of producing weaponry (especially) as focussing too much on destruction. The less work that goes into the creation of something, the easier it may be to use it to destroy. Perhaps.

If Anduril has something of Aragon within it, along with Isildur and Elendil, it may make the killing process a much more personal thing. Whereas with the blade off the production line, it may seem more functional.

These kind of remind me about the discussion of the mentality towards killing at the age of blades vs. the age of guns (not to talk of the age of missiles). With a sword one literally has to kill the one facing him in close quarters - and is forced to see and feel the enemy die in a way or another. With guns one could detach oneself from the act of killing a bit - slowly as the first rifles were slow to load and didn't fire far away etc. But with the modern technologies - the prologue of which the prof experienced in WW1 - one can just kill and destroy by pushing a button hundreds of miles away.

This I think Tolkien was very much aware of: the machine gun, the artillery... faceless killing by mass-produced machines of destruction detached from the suffering and somehow also from the guilt of doing so. A most moral issue!

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Perhaps Tolkien saw the mechanised way of producing weaponry (especially) as focussing too much on destruction. The less work that goes into the creation of something, the easier it may be to use it to destroy. Perhaps.

That's not to say swords like Anduril were not used for killing. They were. But there is something about those thousands of crude blades dropping off the production lines that makes it seem like killing is only a small matter.

In some cases, enchantment requires something of the self to go into the object. As has been discussed. If Anduril has something of Aragon within it, along with Isildur and Elendil, it may make the killing process a much more personal thing. Whereas with the blade off the production line, it may seem more functional.

As well as this, Narsil, for example, has a history, a past, and anyone who wields it probably feels that they have a responsibility to prove themeselves worthy of being the wielder of the sword. Swords like that, that have been a smith's masterpiece, that have had a noble history, are the ones that are not only instruments but entities on their own. The sword that defeated Sauron has to again take up and defeat Sauron. The sword sort of developes its own personality in a way, and the wielder has to accept it before using it.
I'm sure Aragorn, for example, wouldn't use the sword, Narsil reforged, for such a crude thing as hunting or the like, not only because it's impractical, but because he respects this weapon as something other than the weapon.
This is even stronger in the case of Anduril, because Narsil was reforged just for Aragorn, so he has even more responsibility to uphold the sword's name and honour.

And this also leads to the subject of people naming their weapons. Nowadays with guns it is less important, as the guns aren't actually yours, but belong to the army. But in the past the past you had your own weapon, one which had served you well in the past, and you would feel attached to it. The weapon might have even been passed down to you, and as the sword lives longer than its bearers, their name and memory and deeds are part of the sword. When it has its own identity, it makes you do things that are related to it, because as stated above, I don't think that Aragorn would use Anduril for any of the less "noble" tasks. The sword developes a life of its own, and we see in the Narn, Gurthang acts on its own, and I think this is also symbolic of all swords, in that the sword over time gets a personality.