Narsil

ISILDUR
Die, Sauron!

SAURON
(reading sword)
"Nereb and Dungalef and warriors ten, / so we are called, and dark our den?" Nereb and Dungalef . . . who were those guys?
(holding up finger because he just realized)
Wait a minute! I bet they were -

Isildur cuts off Sauron's finger.

Honestly, I'm not super-crazy about Telchar predicting the exact wording of Finrod's rap battle with Sauron. Also, the dwarvish script is hidden on the tang. Also-also... I don't have anything else, just wanted to say also-also.
 
Oh, no, I certainly wasn't suggesting the entire thing there - I more meant that that passage could serve as inspiration for us to write the inscription.

I imagine Telchar is thinking something along the lines of 'breaker-of-chains.' But since that is a title of Danerys Stormborn, the Unburnt, etc, we'd want to modify it slightly. So....'snapper of chains' :p Or simply "Freedom!"

Some idea that means 'anti-captivity'
 
Hmmm, something about shining a light on the truth? After all, the name of the sword refers to sunlight, so defeating/driving out the darkness is a theme as well...though I don't want to stray too far from the anti-captivity concept
 
I've read a bit of the discussion on this in another thread concerning design. I found this, and I think it's really fitting, if it was lengthened, and made into a hand-and-a-half sword, and a bit of embellishment, or course. Seems like a nice blend of elven and dwarven styles.

1576299802926.jpg
 
One of the things we established about Telchar early on was her ability to gauge the strengths of her "clients" and design weapons specifically around them. Watching the Sindar using their hunting bows inspired her to invent the war bow, specifically giving Beleg his "Strongbow".
 
Bear in mind that Narsil is probably designed to be used in tandem with a shield, but I do like the design.
A hand-and-a-half sword can be used with a shield. They are designed to be used either one-handed or two-handed. Boromir's sword from the films is a good example of this.
 
A hand-and-a-half sword can be used with a shield. They are designed to be used either one-handed or two-handed. Boromir's sword from the films is a good example of this.
I'm just looking to clarify, since "hand and a half sword" is a fairly modern and somewhat vague term. I'd say that having it on the longish end for an arming sword would be appropriate. As you approach longsword length it would make it increasingly unwieldy in tandem use with a shield.
 
I'm just looking to clarify, since "hand and a half sword" is a fairly modern and somewhat vague term. I'd say that having it on the longish end for an arming sword would be appropriate. As you approach longsword length it would make it increasingly unwieldy in tandem use with a shield.
There doesn't seem to be a proper, pre-19th century term for a sword whose hilt is between one-handed and two-handed; I presume that if one had a one-handed sword it was an arming sword and if two a longsword (I don't know why Capulet in Romeo and Juliet calls for a longsword if everyone is using rapiers).
 
There doesn't seem to be a proper, pre-19th century term for a sword whose hilt is between one-handed and two-handed; if one had a one-handed sword it was an arming sword and if two a longsword (I don't know why Capulet in Romeo and Juliet calls for a longsword if everyone is using rapiers).

Longsword were still being used through the Renaissance, but also, rapiers are pretty darn long, and I don't imagine Shakespeare was a weapons expert. Think about how many people in Hollywood think that an AR-15 is an automatic weapon.
 
So what reasons would Telchar have for making Narsil an arming sword or a longsword?

Longswords seem to have become popular as plate armor made shields less necessary. As our characters are generally wearing less effective armor, shields would still be a major part of their kit. Swords are a side-arm and could certainly be worn outside of a military context, but at least at this stage would still be arming swords (or swords of similar length).
 
Longswords seem to have become popular as plate armor made shields less necessary. As our characters are generally wearing less effective armor, shields would still be a major part of their kit. Swords are a side-arm and could certainly be worn outside of a military context, but at least at this stage would still be arming swords (or swords of similar length).
This may have been discussed elsewhere, but how are we projecting armor technology to advance? Will armor get more effective before the end or the First Age?
 
Tolkien’s rather reticent on whether or not armor makes advances.
He's actually pretty clear that it does not advance much, if at all. Literally thousands of years after the first armor is made, Tolkien never mentions any plate armor at all, save for a reference to a metal vambrace Imrahil wears in LotR.

Of course, we don't have to use Finrod's words at all. The sword can simply say "Never a Thrall" or something like that.
How about simply: Leithian? Release from bondage?

Is there a clear line of secession for the sword yet? I know it starts at Aegnor, but it got murky after that.
 
Last edited:
He's actually pretty clear that it does not advance much, if at all. Literally thousands of years after the first armor is made, Tolkien never mentions any plate armor at all, save for a reference to a metal vambrace Imrahil wears in LotR.
There are a few additional references, but it is fairly clear he envisioned every one in earlier armor types. My response to this is that Tolkien himself may have been under the Victorian impression that plate armor was so heavy that it's wearers were slow and awkward. This isn't a dig at him, a lot of people still believe this now.

I'd kinda prefer to see progressions in armor as we go, but I can live with just having everyone in mail.
 
Back
Top