Sword Preference?

[Manveruon]

So this has been touched on elsewhere, but reading a bit about it made me think that perhaps it could use its own topic. That is, what sort of sword (if any) do each of us rangers personally prefer, and why?

In Tolkien's writing, Strider is said to carry a longsword (Narsil/Anduril), but Strider is also a somewhat special case, being descended from the old kings, and having inherited the weapon of his ancestors. But would all rangers have worn this sort of weapon? The rangers who met with Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli on their way to Dunharrow and the Paths of the Dead were going to war, so they may have carried swords suited for large-scale combat, but I honestly can't remember if Tolkien even mentioned the weapons they carried in the Return of the King. As this is, after all, the "Middle Earth Ranger Forum" I tend to gravitate towards the Tolkien-esque. However...

In John Flanagan's Ranger's Apprentice series, on the other hand, the author describes HIS rangers as almost never carrying a sword at all (with one notable exception, who is specifically mentioned numerous times as being something of an oddity for a ranger). Instead they uniformly arm themselves only with a bow, a long saxe knife, and a throwing knife.

Now personally, I like swords. They're iconic and romantic, and just plain cool. But are they practical for rangers? And if so, what sort of sword would a ranger be most likely to carry into the field?

For myself, I tend to favor a somewhat shorter blade. After doing pirate reenactment/re-creation for a while, I became very attached to the use of a cutlass. It's just an all-around great weapon - a downright killing machine. It's short, and so can be wielded easily with one hand. It's also better for close-quarters fighting because of this, as well as not being as obtrusive when worn at the hip as a longer blade. It's also quite heavy, and this fact plus the curve of the blade make it a very effective cutting weapon. Still, the tips on most cutlasses are plenty capable of delivering a deadly thrust.

With this in mind, for rangering I'd probably choose some kind of arming sword, or archer's short-sword. While not curved like a cutlass, these could still be easily wielded in one hand, and would make pretty effective cut-and-thrust weapons. While the hand-and-a-half, or bastard sword design definitely has a romantic appeal, I feel that these types of swords are just too cumbersome for my personal (mostly theoretical) fighting style. In my experience, a shorter blade offers greater control, and the single-handed grip can be useful if one decided to use sword and dagger in tandem.

So ultimately that would be my choice. Is there anyone who disagrees? Anyone who just plain loves their longsword? Or what about other types, like falchions?

[theowl]

I tend to gravitate towards longswords, probably because I've trained with them more than anything else, but I do seem to have more of a knack for those over other types. They can be a bit cumbersome in tight spaces,but a few adjustments in your harness can fix that easily.

That being said, I am a fan of shorter blades like cutlasses and basket-hilts. They're a lot easier to wear around, graceful, and incredibly effective in a fight. Good enough for George Silver, good enough for me.

In the end it's all preference, If there were such thing as a "perfect sword" they would all look like that.

[Peter Remling]

I prefer a lighter hand and a half. Not much bigger than a typical single hander and can be readily used with both hands. I generally carry a longknife as my offhand weapon but in the brush it's longknife and tomahawk as the hawk is much more useful in camp.

[Ringulf]

So this has been touched on elsewhere, but reading a bit about it made me think that perhaps it could use its own topic. That is, what sort of sword (if any) do each of us rangers personally prefer, and why?

In Tolkien's writing, Strider is said to carry a longsword (Narsil/Anduril), but Strider is also a somewhat special case, being descended from the old kings, and having inherited the weapon of his ancestors. But would all rangers have worn this sort of weapon? The rangers who met with Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli on their way to Dunharrow and the Paths of the Dead were going to war, so they may have carried swords suited for large-scale combat, but I honestly can't remember if Tolkien even mentioned the weapons they carried in the Return of the King. As this is, after all, the "Middle Earth Ranger Forum" I tend to gravitate towards the Tolkien-esque. However...

In John Flanagan's Ranger's Apprentice series, on the other hand, the author describes HIS rangers as almost never carrying a sword at all (with one notable exception, who is specifically mentioned numerous times as being something of an oddity for a ranger). Instead they uniformly arm themselves only with a bow, a long saxe knife, and a throwing knife.

Now personally, I like swords. They're iconic and romantic, and just plain cool. But are they practical for rangers? And if so, what sort of sword would a ranger be most likely to carry into the field?

For myself, I tend to favor a somewhat shorter blade. After doing pirate reenactment/re-creation for a while, I became very attached to the use of a cutlass. It's just an all-around great weapon - a downright killing machine. It's short, and so can be wielded easily with one hand. It's also better for close-quarters fighting because of this, as well as not being as obtrusive when worn at the hip as a longer blade. It's also quite heavy, and this fact plus the curve of the blade make it a very effective cutting weapon. Still, the tips on most cutlasses are plenty capable of delivering a deadly thrust.

With this in mind, for rangering I'd probably choose some kind of arming sword, or archer's short-sword. While not curved like a cutlass, these could still be easily wielded in one hand, and would make pretty effective cut-and-thrust weapons. While the hand-and-a-half, or bastard sword design definitely has a romantic appeal, I feel that these types of swords are just too cumbersome for my personal (mostly theoretical) fighting style. In my experience, a shorter blade offers greater control, and the single-handed grip can be useful if one decided to use sword and dagger in tandem.

So ultimately that would be my choice. Is there anyone who disagrees? Anyone who just plain loves their longsword? Or what about other types, like falchions?

I don't see why you should even bother moving away from your cutlass! It is a totaly viable option and if you are comfortable with it's use and already have one stick with it.

It can make your persona as a ranger a bit more unique.

You can give yourself a background that explaines it's presence and your familiarity with it (Remember Aragorn spent a bit of time in both the army of Gondor and Rohan supposidly) so I suppose due to thier long lifespans, Dunadain may have broadened their martial and cultural experience by doing this for some of their youth.

Could help explain a bit of the Piratical background and make an interesting bridge! Many southern cultures in Middle Earth were Seagoing!

If you do tend toward the nautical, or what I call a Searanger, you may pick up some sort of paratical knife and definitely look into a boarding axe! Perfect offhand weapon and companion to the cutlass in many cultures and time periods!

[Gondian]

So this has been touched on elsewhere, but reading a bit about it made me think that perhaps it could use its own topic. That is, what sort of sword (if any) do each of us rangers personally prefer, and why?

In Tolkien's writing, Strider is said to carry a longsword (Narsil/Anduril), but Strider is also a somewhat special case, being descended from the old kings, and having inherited the weapon of his ancestors. But would all rangers have worn this sort of weapon? The rangers who met with Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli on their way to Dunharrow and the Paths of the Dead were going to war, so they may have carried swords suited for large-scale combat, but I honestly can't remember if Tolkien even mentioned the weapons they carried in the Return of the King. As this is, after all, the "Middle Earth Ranger Forum" I tend to gravitate towards the Tolkien-esque. However...

In John Flanagan's Ranger's Apprentice series, on the other hand, the author describes HIS rangers as almost never carrying a sword at all (with one notable exception, who is specifically mentioned numerous times as being something of an oddity for a ranger). Instead they uniformly arm themselves only with a bow, a long saxe knife, and a throwing knife.

Now personally, I like swords. They're iconic and romantic, and just plain cool. But are they practical for rangers? And if so, what sort of sword would a ranger be most likely to carry into the field?

For myself, I tend to favor a somewhat shorter blade. After doing pirate reenactment/re-creation for a while, I became very attached to the use of a cutlass. It's just an all-around great weapon - a downright killing machine. It's short, and so can be wielded easily with one hand. It's also better for close-quarters fighting because of this, as well as not being as obtrusive when worn at the hip as a longer blade. It's also quite heavy, and this fact plus the curve of the blade make it a very effective cutting weapon. Still, the tips on most cutlasses are plenty capable of delivering a deadly thrust.

With this in mind, for rangering I'd probably choose some kind of arming sword, or archer's short-sword. While not curved like a cutlass, these could still be easily wielded in one hand, and would make pretty effective cut-and-thrust weapons. While the hand-and-a-half, or bastard sword design definitely has a romantic appeal, I feel that these types of swords are just too cumbersome for my personal (mostly theoretical) fighting style. In my experience, a shorter blade offers greater control, and the single-handed grip can be useful if one decided to use sword and dagger in tandem.

So ultimately that would be my choice. Is there anyone who disagrees? Anyone who just plain loves their longsword? Or what about other types, like falchions?

Like falchions? LOVE FALCHIONS!!!

[Ringulf]

When it comes to swords again (and no big surprise) I have a hard time picking just one as I so enjoy different styles and types, and the way they are used, and in what situations.

When I started in stage fighting and the SCA the first time back in the early eighties, I was partial to longsword and maine gauche. Then I started to study the Japanese martial arts and spent a long time studying Kenjutsu along with my Jui Jutsu.

Becoming comfortable with Katana and then Katana/Wakizashi, I had a good basis for fighting either two handed sword or flourentine when I eventually moved back to European weaponry.

Then I got into my Norse studies and it all changed again. The sword was very different and it's use and philosophy changed with it. Learning viking swordsmanship did make me use and understand the sword and board methods of the norse and the thought of focussing on striking more acurately while letting your shield do the parrying. This translates well if not directly to the Rohirim's sword usage and sets one up to get into what would be the Dwarven use of sword and shield as well as their preference for two handed swords as main weapons on occasion.

So if I speak as a Khazad swordsman (which there are some, Thorin didn't balk to have Orcrist at his side) I would say a stout viking type sword could be used as a secondary weapon or in conjunction with a shield, or a sword such as the one below, (though there is no historical precident) would be best utilized.
And truthfully this sword would be one I could be very comfortable with.





Don't change a thing I'll take it as is!!

[Greg]

Well, the way the books describe Anduril does say "long" sword, but this doesn't necessarily mean that it is what we know today to be a longsword, being a hand-and-a-half or two-hander commonly seen in WMA studies. However, I believe that was not the case.

The trick is to look at comparisons. Boromir's sword was described (pardon the imperfect quote here...working from memory) as being "in fashion like that of Anduril, though it was of less lineage." Boromir carried with him a shield which he used in all engagements he was a part of during the fellowship of the ring, suggesting that his "longsword" was more of an Arming sword. This, in turn, would suggest that Aragorn's blade was, similarly, at least capable of being used primarily in one hand. I've held a longsword-length blade in sparring while using a shield, and it was extremely awkward. Though hand-and-a-half swords are supposed to be able to be used with one hand on occasion, it really isn't their primary function.

This all doesn't necessarily prove anything, but it certainly begs to reason just how far off the films were from the writing. Not that I don't think a sleek two-hander like the film blade doesn't make a good presence or wouldn't be effective as a sword of war...but I don't think it was what Tolkien intended.

Now on to my personal preference. The Oakeshott Type XVI has become my personal favorite, closely followed by the XIV. Granted, the first blade I purchased was a XVI, so one could say I'm biased, but all other examples of the XVI I've seen have continued this trend, and through studying its use in an I.33 format, I've continued to become more and more enamored with a mildly shorter arming sword.

Someday, a nice, higher-end custom piece built off the still-not-in-production Atrim XVI Mike reviewed on SBG way back when may be in queue, but for the time being, I'll content myself with my VA Bristol, which has been through it all and remains a nice beater sword that I don't mind carrying through the thick of it. The type XVI is short enough to not hang up on everything in the woods, but it's longer than the average Seax, truly providing me with enough blade to engage all potential opposing steel one could expect to encounter in the third age...and will easily be more than enough to engage all one could expect to find in the woods.

Simple, rather lovely, but to the point, if you'll forgive the pun. The review of the prototype made a bit deal about how stiff it was. To the point of seeming as though one could use it as a prybar to find chinks in armor. Designed with the focus on the thrust, to be a compact, efficient killer that would work well in the woods by itself, with a buckler, or with a dagger in the off-hand.

That all being said...nothing in hand-to-hand combat works as a force multiplier more effectively than a spear. The grey company was specifically described as being armed with "spear and bow and sword". There's a reason for that. Spears are awesome, deadly, and useful around camp for tent poles and the like. You can even hunt boars with them. Very useful...and book-accurate. And if you carry a spear, you most certainly would have a backup of some sort on your belt.

[E.MacKermak]

Personally, I think a group who make their livings by stalking the woodlands would not be as likely to use the longsword. The amount of room necessary for effective use does somewhat limit it's effectiveness in the woods. I personally lean toward the arming sword, migration era swords, or langsax for this reason. I like the falchion for having a short heavy blade able to do mass damage in tight confines. The Grosse Messer is another favorite of mine, though period examples seem to be a bit shorter than the Cold Steel variant. I have spent a lot of time in various wooded terrain from the forests and mountains of the Mid-Atlantic to the jungles of Panama and I would and do stick to the shorter heavy blades.

[Kiriana]

For Rangering I prefer short swords. Something with a blade of about 19"-23" with about a 6" handle

Otherwise I prefer larger blades. hehe

[Eledhwen]

Rangers are independent folk. What uniformity exists seems to be expressed mostly in the grey cloaks and the star brooches...otherwise I suspect they dress and equip themselves as best suits each person.

I prefer shortswords. At the moment I have an old Del Tin gladius blade..not terribly accurate for a gladius but I am reworking it into a Númenorean shortsword. I've already reworked the blade long since; now there's the guard, grip, and pommel to sort out and of course the sheath and baldric for it...unless I use the belt mount method.

Shortswords require little space, are lightweight, and a thrust is far more efficient than a cut...and generally deadlier too although you have to be in close.

There's a lot of romance caught up in knightly swords of various sort...they suit some folk and recall that the Dúnedain were larger and stronger than common folk, if still smaller than the Elves. Even so, the Númenoreans had shortswords as backup weapons. I choose to use them as primary.

Each Ranger uses what best suits them, what most appeals to them. There is no one right set of kit. Independent sorts, Rangers. Duecedly uncooperative when it comes to standardization.

Eledhwen

[kaelln]

Hey Ringulf, that's a gorgeous two-handed viking style sword. I've never seen one like it. Is this one you own? Who made it? Is there a website where we can see more of this artist's work?

[Ernildir]

It is probably not appropriate to the period of Middle-earth, but I prefer rapier and dagger, if only because it's the only style I know how to use.

[Aaron]

Hey Ringulf, that's a gorgeous two-handed viking style sword. I've never seen one like it. Is this one you own? Who made it? Is there a website where we can see more of this artist'w work?

Brendan over at Fableblades.com made it. He's got more than a few LOTR-styled pieces as well.

Greg, I took the comparison between Boromir's sword and Anduril as more of a comparison of hilts and to denote that both swords were well-made (since 'to fashion' is to make, and 'well-fashioned' is synonymous with well-made). I also don't recall Aragorn being referenced as using a shield, which was almost always used in conjunction with an arming sword. Personally I believe Aragorn would have adapted to use Anduril, not because it was the most effective for rangering, but because of his connection to it and their intertwined lineage. He was far more proud of his ancestry in the books than he was in the films. Plus, Elendil never had to root around in the forests, the weapon was built for the battlefield and so could afford to be larger.

Personally, I wouldn't prefer something quite that big. The H/T Fullered Bastard is the biggest I'd feel comfortable with in the woods, and an arming sword is what I feel most comfortable with on my hip. My Angus Trim XIIIb.1 is what I'll be carrying once I finish paying it off.

[Ringulf]

Aaron is absolutely correct, in retrospect, pardon me for not referencing it when I put it up there. I should not have had anyone guessing I just was using it to refer to the type of sword I was speaking of.

No Brother Fox, I don't own it, but I have long admired it and I would like to actually use the concept myself at some point to make my own. Until then this one stays in my "wish book"! (for Inspiration)

[Greg]

Aaron, I can see the comparison being specifically related to the hilts as well...that's an interesting thought. I think I'll stick with my interpretation, but I can see that being a possibility as well. He certainly never used a shield during the great years, but he did have a pretty substantial amount of adapting to do...he went from carrying (and, I assume, occasionally using) half a sword for quite a number of years, to having the whole shebang, virtually overnight. One of the big changes in the films, that right there. Even with a short Type XVI or XIV, that'd be a pretty big adjustment, though I'd never assume Anduril to be short, persay. Certainly a sizeable blade...just not necessarily a big two-hander.