From: Colonel Panic Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Merry's Sword Organization: Absinthesis Studios Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 49 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 10:40:42 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.26.46.189 X-Complaints-To: abuse@onemain.com X-Trace: nntp3.onemain.com 956943705 216.26.46.189 (Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:41:45 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:41:45 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!nntp3.onemain.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:17828 One thing that I've seen no one mention is that, in olden times, a weapon or other device gained power through its lineage. A sword forged by ones twice-great grandfather and used victoriously in battle by several generations eventually became known as a sword of great power. This is mainly because most weapons were forged of lower quality iron, and a weapon that lasted for several generations was SURE to be something special. I don't believe that the swords of Westerness acquired by the hobbits on the Barrow Downs were intended to be 'magical' as we understand it; rather, they were of very high quality and imbued with the intent and will of the makers and wielders to bring down the Kingdom of Angmar. In a world more mystical and fey such as Middle Earth, this is enough to give the wearer of a sword confidence and, perhaps, a more-than-ordinary advantage. And perhaps, in M-E, the actual will of the makers was present in some fashion, but not overtly in the sense of a Dungeons and Dragons-style "Sword +1, +5 vs Ringwraiths". Gah. When I was 15 and at the height of my juvenile Tolkien-love, I had a yew simple-bow with which I drove a pack of wild dogs away from the horse stables, killing one large one in the process. I ceremonially named this bow Draug-Dagnir, engraving the name in Tengwar upon the front of it. It seemed after that that I rarely missed the mark when using this bow as opposed to my fancier compound or recurved bows. Was this due to any 'magic'? No! When using Draug-Dagnir I simply FELT more calm and in tune with the weapon, which any archer can tell you is essential to good marksmanship. It was an illusion brought on by association with a past 'victory', but it gave me an edge that mere technology couldn't. Merry, driven by his love for Theoden and Eowyn, his hatred toward the Witch-King for injuring Frodo and killing Theoden, and knowing that his blade was 'forged in Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor' put his entire being behind the blow. No magic involved, merely pure love and a weapon of great lineage. OK, let the rebuttals fly! Reg'ds, Terry -- The two of them trek untraveled country: wolf-haunted heights and windy headlands, the frightful fen-path where falling torrents dive into darkness stream beneath stone... ###### From: Jamie Armstrong Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Merry's Sword Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 19:48:05 +0100 Organization: http://www.geocities.com/jamie.armstrong/ Lines: 120 Message-ID: <3909DCE5.A74EC0C7@durham.ac.uk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: er151-27.dur.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!gxn.net!server6.netnews.ja.net!nntphost.dur.ac.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:17881 Colonel Panic wrote: > > One thing that I've seen no one mention is that, in olden times, a > weapon or other device gained power through its lineage. A sword > forged by ones twice-great grandfather and used victoriously in battle > by several generations eventually became known as a sword of great > power. > As I understand it, swords that were owned by leaders or important men were often buried with them - thinking of the Sutton Hoo burials, and many other high-status burials throughout history, weapons are a common feature. Of coure, it could be that these are low-quality funerary items, and that the top-quality originals remained in use. I wonder what the statistics are for sword reuse? Damn - there goes a brilliant dissertation topic for me! But I know someone who might find the notion useful. An interesting (though probably not that relevant) thing I heard a week or two ago was about the manufacture of swords for re-enactment societies. An acquaintance of mine brought his replica sword in to university, so I asked him a few questions about it. Apparently, most modern Anglo-Saxon replicas are made with a straight tang (the tang being the part of the blade that attaches to the hilt). But his sword was made properly, using a tang that was thicker at the end where it met the blade. This meant that his sword was stronger than his opponents, and he was often able to break their swords in battle! Another thing was that I was surprisd at just how heavy the sword was - it was properly wighted, and it felt more like a club with a very sharp edge. I think even a blunt sword would have done a great deal of damage, never mind a sharp one! But I've strayed off the point here slightly ;) > This is mainly because most weapons were forged of lower quality iron, > and a weapon that lasted for several generations was SURE to be > something special. > Hmmm.... I can't help feeling that a sword that remained in use for more than one or two generations would be in rather poor condition, assuming it was used quite regularly. I'm only guessing about this though. Also - in't waiting two or three generations to find out whether a sword is any good or not a rather risky method?! But in Middle Earth it was different - IIRC the weapons were made of steel, not iron. And Elvish blades in particular seem to have had their own special qualities of preservation - after all, in our world, no sword would survive the 6,000 or more years between the fall of Gondolin and the War of the Ring, as Orcrist did! Narsil/Anduril seems to have had a similar property, as do the Barrow Blades - the latter all remained sharp despite their long time in a damp barrow. > I don't believe that the swords of Westerness acquired by the hobbits > on the Barrow Downs were intended to be 'magical' as we understand it; > rather, they were of very high quality and imbued with the intent and > will of the makers and wielders to bring down the Kingdom of Angmar. Actually, Aragorn says that the weapons were wound about with spells for the bane of MORDOR - not Angmar. I think that would tend to prove that they were not designed as Anti-Nazgul assassination blades - or even as a specifically Anti-Nazgul King weapon. My own take on it is that they were forged with some form of magical property, perhaps just one that was designed to ensure the swords stayed sharp for a long period of time, and would not break except under extreme conditions (e.g. the Witch King using magic at the Ford of Bruinen). Also, there is another point that suggests that the Barrow blades were magical - when Merry and Pippin are capured by Saruman's Orcs, they cast their swords away, as if they burned. Why else would they do this, if it were not for the fact that there was at least some magical property in them? I did originally try to argue a similar point to you - I claimed that the 'spells' were curses uttered during the forging of the weapons. But I've been persuaded from all the evidence that all four of the Barrow swords were magical in some way. > In a world more mystical and fey such as Middle Earth, this is enough > to give the wearer of a sword confidence and, perhaps, a > more-than-ordinary advantage. And perhaps, in M-E, the actual will of > the makers was present in some fashion, but not overtly in the sense > of a Dungeons and Dragons-style "Sword +1, +5 vs Ringwraiths". Gah. > I agree with you there - as I said earlier I don't accept the idea of an Anti-Nazgul weapon. Both Merry and Eowyn had the potential to harm or kill the Witch King because of the prophecy, and it didn't matter what type of weapons they used to do the job. > When I was 15 and at the height of my juvenile Tolkien-love, I had a > yew simple-bow with which I drove a pack of wild dogs away from the > horse stables, killing one large one in the process. I ceremonially > named this bow Draug-Dagnir, engraving the name in Tengwar upon the > front of it. It seemed after that that I rarely missed the mark when > using this bow as opposed to my fancier compound or recurved bows. > Was this due to any 'magic'? No! When using Draug-Dagnir I simply > FELT more calm and in tune with the weapon, which any archer can tell > you is essential to good marksmanship. It was an illusion brought on > by association with a past 'victory', but it gave me an edge that mere > technology couldn't. > Yes, I understand this - I've used .22 and 5.56mm weapons before, and it can simply be a case of being more comfortable with the less high-tech weapon which you are more familiar with. > Merry, driven by his love for Theoden and Eowyn, his hatred toward the > Witch-King for injuring Frodo and killing Theoden, and knowing that > his blade was 'forged in Westernesse, wound about with spells for the > bane of Mordor' put his entire being behind the blow. No magic > involved, merely pure love and a weapon of great lineage. > I sympathise with you here - I think that the fact that Merry had a magical sword was a bonus, but not essential. The lineage too was unimportant - I think that had someone knocked up a sword for Merry the morning before the battle, it would still have done the job. But I like your suggestion that at least part of the Witch King's demise was due to Merry's being at one with his sword - it has a certain rightness about it! Jamie ###### From: Thomas.Koenig@cologne.de Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: Merry's Sword Date: 1 May 2000 20:14:49 +0200 Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany Lines: 10 Message-ID: <8ekhip$dls$1@mvmap66.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de> References: <3909DCE5.A74EC0C7@durham.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: mvmap66.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de 957204882 24069 129.13.201.66 X-Complaints-To: usenet@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!bignews.mediaways.net!blackbush.xlink.net!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!news.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:18092 Jamie Armstrong wrote: >Actually, Aragorn says that the weapons were wound about with spells for >the bane of MORDOR - not Angmar. The Numenoreans had little reason to put anti-Mordor spells on their blades after the fall of Sauron at the end of the Second Age, so they must have been forged before that. OTOH, Aragorn may simply have been mistaken. OTTH, maybe Aragorn simply equated "evil" and "Mordor" in this case.