Angrist

Ange1e4e5

Well-Known Member
How should Angrist look? Leaf-shaped? Is it a dagger? A heavy-looking Bowie-type knife? A twin of Narsil (this was a concept that I have toyed with since I had an idea of Curufin being the first wielder of Narsil and has precedence in the films; Boromir carries a dagger that is a smaller version of his sword, which he throws into an Uruk-hai’s throat at the beginning of his last stand)?
 

Nicholas Palazzo

Well-Known Member
How should Angrist look? Leaf-shaped? Is it a dagger? A heavy-looking Bowie-type knife? A twin of Narsil (this was a concept that I have toyed with since I had an idea of Curufin being the first wielder of Narsil and has precedence in the films; Boromir carries a dagger that is a smaller version of his sword, which he throws into an Uruk-hai’s throat at the beginning of his last stand)?
It has to be heavy enough to stand up to being used as a chisel and prybar, for one thing. Such a dagger would likely be a rondel of some kind, I think.

fed73895138d75aff34fc2d2effd9fad.jpg
 

Ange1e4e5

Well-Known Member
It has to be heavy enough to stand up to being used as a chisel and prybar, for one thing. Such a dagger would likely be a rondel of some kind, I think.

View attachment 2120
Is there something to the metal the Dwarves use that would make it cut iron like cheese, or able to cut a Silmaril from Morgoth’s crown? The Hosts were not clear on the magic swords part (they can be hard to follow).
 

Nicholas Palazzo

Well-Known Member
Is there something to the metal the Dwarves use that would make it cut iron like cheese, or able to cut a Silmaril from Morgoth’s crown? The Hosts were not clear on the magic swords part (they can be hard to follow).
I'm not entirely certain where the lack of clarity lies. Most magic in Middle-Earth lies in language at some level. The Hosts seemed to think that most dwarvish magic is done through runes. Angrist, therefore, would be commanded not to snap by runes on the blade or hilt. This would give such a dagger the ability to easily pierce mail or scale armor. And to pry the Silmarils loose from the crown, especially if it is made purely of iron, the ductility of which is far greater than even normal hardened steel.
 

Ange1e4e5

Well-Known Member
I'm not entirely certain where the lack of clarity lies. Most magic in Middle-Earth lies in language at some level. The Hosts seemed to think that most dwarvish magic is done through runes. Angrist, therefore, would be commanded not to snap by runes on the blade or hilt. This would give such a dagger the ability to easily pierce mail or scale armor. And to pry the Silmarils loose from the crown, especially if it is made purely of iron, the ductility of which is far greater than even normal hardened steel.
On a general note with magic swords.
 

Rhiannon

Well-Known Member
Is it possible that Angrist could be made of the same metal as Anglachel and Anguirel, the meteoric iron that "would cleave all earth-delved iron?" The Silmarillion says that there were only two swords made of this, but it does not say there were no knives. If Eol forged his swords while he was with Telchar, it's possible that he could have shared some of the metal with her or she would have taken what was left over and used it to forge Angrist.
 

Nicholas Palazzo

Well-Known Member
I couldn’t follow the conversation about magic swords. Is it possible to explain what they’ve decided
Essentially, their take was that magic in Middle-Earth is typically made by words, spoken, sung, or written. That the will of the magic-maker powers the spell. The Elves, for example, would sing to their blades as they made them, telling them what their magical attributes would be. Dwarves would likely carve runes instead.
 

Ange1e4e5

Well-Known Member
Essentially, their take was that magic in Middle-Earth is typically made by words, spoken, sung, or written. That the will of the magic-maker powers the spell. The Elves, for example, would sing to their blades as they made them, telling them what their magical attributes would be. Dwarves would likely carve runes instead.
So to expand into Lord of the Rings, what would Gandalf be saying when he destroyed the Bridge at Khazad-dum?
 

Nicholas Palazzo

Well-Known Member
So to expand into Lord of the Rings, what would Gandalf be saying when he destroyed the Bridge at Khazad-dum?
Well, being a Maia, he might not have been saying anything. But it does say he cried out. Based on the principle above, he could just have been yelling, "Break!"
 

Rhiannon

Well-Known Member
I think it was simply “You cannot pass!” He says that, so it becomes reality, just like when he tells Saruman “Your staff is broken. “
 

Nicholas Palazzo

Well-Known Member
I think it was simply “You cannot pass!” He says that, so it becomes reality, just like when he tells Saruman “Your staff is broken. “
Well, he says that first.

‘You cannot pass!’ he said. With a bound the Balrog leaped full upon the bridge. Its whip whirled and hissed. ‘He cannot stand alone!’ cried Aragorn suddenly and ran back along the bridge. ‘Elendil!’ he shouted. ‘I am with you, Gandalf!’‘Gondor!’ cried Boromir and leaped after him. At that moment Gandalf lifted his staff, and crying aloud he smote the bridge before him. The staff broke asunder and fell from his hand. A blinding sheet of white flame sprang up. The bridge cracked. Right at the Balrog’s feet it broke, and the stone upon which it stood crashed into the gulf, while the rest remained, poised, quivering like a tongue of rock thrust out into emptiness.
Gandalf crying out while striking the bridge is what I'm referring to. You may be right to say the breaking of the bridge might be from the power of saying "You cannot pass!" It seems to me, however that this is not directly responsible. He actively does something, after which the bridge breaks. I'm inclined to think that this is just Gandalf's internal power, channelled through the staff, but it could be that when he is crying out, it is an actual word which Frodo didn't understand.
 

MithLuin

Administrator
Staff member
My Angrist prop is Damascus steel. Any reason to think the dwarves would be doing something like that? (Obviously, mine's pattern welded, not a pre-17th century blade from the near east!)
 

Nicholas Palazzo

Well-Known Member
My Angrist prop is Damascus steel. Any reason to think the dwarves would be doing something like that? (Obviously, mine's pattern welded, not a pre-17th century blade from the near east!)
I actually discussed Damascus steel briefly here:

I do believe it was you, Ruth, who brought up the idea of Damascus Steel, and that seems a fantastic idea as a Second Age innovation. We do not use it today partially because the techniques of its manufacture were lost to time, but also because we do not need it. We are able to duplicate it's properties in other ways. I think similarly, when the Noldor arrive in Beleriand, they and the dwarves are able to create the kind of strong, flexible blades that Damascus Steel makes by using other methods and alloys. After the ruin of Beleriand and the collapse of the dwarven kingdoms of Nogrod and Belegost, those secrets are lost. Now, Khazad-dum has one answer, using alloys with Mithril. The Numenoreans might have another in the innovation of Damascus Steel, a technique which is once again lost by the time we reach the War of the Ring.
The dwarves likely do not need to use Damascus steel at any point, because they are likely capable of steel-making methods which give the smelter more control over carbon content. These would be, in order of ascending complexity, crucible steel, blister steel, and oxygen steel. I would say that the dwarves are capable of at least Blister steel.
 
Top