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

[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?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I see our points of view really differ at this point, but I am going to post my view on this:

Originally Posted by Morwen

Why remove them after all from a place where they had been safe for centuries?

My answer would be, because it is no longer their place. The tale has moved on. In the same way as Bilbo could no longer carry the Ring (although it's somewhat clumsy comparison). Anyway, the point is, Aragorn, from this point on, takes the responsibility on himself - the responsibility for the fate for the bloodline as ancient as... well, very ancient. It is interesting also, that right after learning this, the first person Aragorn meets and tells her about his ancestry makes him feel the ancestry not as noble and important (cf. the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen). Something like a fail-safe against arrogance this early on? And with this meeting comes some sort of different reason for him to stay true to his mission - or a thing to think of at least for now, something which will remain sowed in his heart and reveal in full strength at the moment he and Arwen make a promise to each other on Cerin Amroth. But to return to the topic of the sword, this is something significant and crucial to his personal tale - which was the continuation of the tale of all his ancestors - and so I believe he would carry it with him all the time.

[Morwen]

Well we'll have to agree to disagree.

Of course the sword is significant to Aragorn's personal tale. I've never said that it wasn't. I just don't believe that this can be treated as definitive proof that during all the years of his travels he must have taken the sword with him everywhere.

I also don't think that the "Bilbo hands over the Ring" comparison is apt. It is important, inevitable that the Ring must leave the physical custody and safekeeping of one bearer and go to another. The new Ringbearer has to become the Ring's physical custodian.
Aragorn having physical custody of the sword is not important in the same way. To me, what was more important on the day that Elrond "delivered to him the heirlooms of his house" was the revelation of his true name and "who he was and whose son". It is that knowledge, not the possession/custody of objects, that makes Aragorn take responsibility on his self and what prompts him to his subsequent deeds.
I therefore disagree that in the aftermath of Elrond's revelation to Aragorn that Rivendell is no longer the place for the heirlooms (ring and sword). In my opinion, the physical location of those objects isn't the point of the revelation. From that day forward Aragorn may certainly do with them as he pleases. But, Elrond isn't after all telling him to take his things and go.

[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.