Why was Aragorn carrying the shards of Narsil around?

[MorvaShepley]

Why was Aragorn wandering around the wilderness with the shards of Narsil?

In the film, the shards are enshrined at Rivendell, which makes sense. But watching it again has reminded me of the question above. The sword would be an encumbrance to movement, and no use in the face of danger, so why was he carrying it around? It was also a very special item, and Aragorn went into danger, tracking Gollum down by Mordor, fighting orcs, etc, so he risked losing the shards to the enemy.

I'm assuming there is an answer to this, which I've missed. Hope you can help.

[Majimaune]

Funnily enough I watched FotR the other day but that wont really help...

Well he was carrying them around because they were heirlooms of his family and he would use no other sword then that. Also it couldn't be reforged until the right moment - hence why it is only done when the Fellowship are about to leave.

[The Ace]

As the heir of Isildur, the shards were his responsibility. He had to carry and look after them as had the chieftains of the Dunedain and the kings of Arnor before him. He'd never have asked the question.

[Majimaune]

Yes if it wasn't for Anduril then he might not have become king.

[pyan]

And the bits being at Rivendell in the film jibe with the book - Strider shows Frodo and Sam:

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.'
(FotR, Bk 1, Ch X: Strider)

as part of the proof that he is who he says he is - it backs up the rhyme that Gandalf puts in the letter left with Butterbur:

......
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.
(ibid.)

An essential part of overcoming Frodo's and, especially, Sam's suspicions.

[Majimaune]

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[MorvaShepley]

Wouldn't it have been more responsible to leave the shards at Rivendell? Now, I've wondered why they had to wait before getting it reforged, but apparently they were hoping the ring would never be found, Sauron would never rise again, and Narsil would never be needed again despite Elrond's prohecy (Silmarillion). They were in denial. Plus the light in it was special and probably not easy to reforge. I appreciate that, storywise, the king had to have the sword with him. It strikes me, though, that Tolkein usually has a back story for the things that are happening. Is there some place other than Rivendell that he could have been keeping the sword until, being alerted by Gandalf that something was up about the ring, he was fetching it back for reforging? I wish, instead of Children of Hurin, we had an expanded Tale of Aragorn and Arwen so we could find out more about their labours, not to mention about the sword.

[Majimaune]

I looked it up in Wiki but there wasn't the part I was looking for. Ahh well...

[Sibeling]

He must have had a second sword - how could he possibly fight with the broken one?

But he carried it around to prove his identity to people - it was a sign of his positien in the society and of the fact that he is Isildur's heir, even though his looks suggest otherwise.

[Majimaune]

He was such a good fighter that he didn't need another sword.

[Sibeling]

He just had to give the villains a stern look, and they all ran away crying

[Majimaune]

Exactly.

[devilsgrin]

lol! thats funny. Strider... scary... LOL!!!
He would have had to have another weapon. its just that simple. He was always going into danger, he'd have needed a sword that he could actually have fought with.
I fail to see the reasoning behind him carrying the sword across middle-earth from one end to the other. Its just foolish. if he'd died, been captured or simply lost it, the single greatest evidence of his heritage would have been lost.
Yes it helps to prove to Sam that Strider is a friend (as Frodo was inclined to trust him anyway). But there would have been other ways to prove his identity. and being reasonable, Frodo, at least, would have realised that there was no other choice but for them to trust to Strider's aid.
I think that Peter Jackson's placing the shards of Narsil in Rivendell was inspired and one of the places where common sense prevailed over Tolkeinesque romanticism in the films.

The only reason i can attribute to Aragorn carrying the Shards around is... That as he was the last of his line, if he fell, and Narsil was lost, the line of Numenor would end and no other would need the sword. Had he been responsible and had an heir before gallavanting all over the place, its likely he would have left it behind.

[Majimaune]

It never says anywhere in the books that he has another sword. He might have a dagger or something but not another sword.

[devilsgrin]

but it also never says anywhere that he doesn't have another sword. It makes no specific mention of any weapon he carries other than the shards. As a Ranger Aragorn would not have gone about unarmed its that simple. A dagger would be next to useless. He could have had a bow, another sword, heck he could have carried any type of weapon besides the shards. Point is, aragorn would have been a fool to wander without a proper weapon, and a fool he is not.