Forum

I wondered why we have three different sword types for the heroes in TOR, and a short sword in particular. Yes, I know from my early fantasy RP games from the 80s that there were short swords, but since the designers apparently had no clue about swords (especially the misconception about bastard swords) I don't attach too much importance to it. And I also know that the swords the Romans and other ancient cultures used would be called short swords today.
But the peoples of Middle-Earth, as far as I know it (North and West), have never used these. I just searched my LOTR ebook and noticed that most swords mentioned there are: long swords. Andúril, Glamdring, Boromir's sword... even Herugrim and the swords of the Rohirrim are long swords, so even the horse people don't wear one-handed arming swords.
The only mentioning of short swords occurs in context with Hobbits. But this is kind of a subjective perspective (it's maybe short swords to them but when they were made by the slacksmiths, they were originally meant to be called daggers or knives), because on another occasion Tolkien also just describes them as just "swords".
So in my opinion short swords are not lore-accurate and shouldn't be in the rules (for the same reason we don't have gigantic Great Swords/Claymores I'd say). Or is there anything I may have missed? And when assessed by the same (man-sized) person: what kind of weapon exactly IS Sting (as well as the "swords" of Merry, Pippin and Sam) now ... does it magically switch from dagger/knife (2/14, Load: 0) to Short Sword (3/16, Load: 1) because of ... yes ... what?

It's hard to see how you would represent things like Sting and the Hobbit's barrow blades without having rules for shortswords. You could call them "daggers" I suppose, but Tolkien clearly gave them more narrative weight. You mentioned that the other swords in Middle Earth were all longswords. While this is true in the movies, it seems to me Tolkien just called them "swords" without getting into technical definitions.

Don't misunderstand me. I have great sympathy for not wanting arms and armor that break cannon. I have no desire to see crossbows and plate armor in Middle Earth. But there also seems to be more room for variety than what you describe.

As an aside, most of my TOR characters have carried shortswords. This is a personal narrative choice. I play in Strider Mode and I tend to favor Rangers. The idea of sneaking and climbing around the wilderness with a four-foot steel bar flopping at your waist seems silly. (This is similar to the absurd mental image of D&D adventurers exploring the wilds in full plate armor.) Historically, military personnel who were expected to do things other than fight -- engineers, sappers, artillery, etc. -- were issued short swords for this reason.

Short swords are canon, such as those carried by Isilduir and his men (https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Eket) or those carried by Dain’s troops at the battle of five armies. That’s beyond the repeated references to short swords with regard to hobbits.

It's hard to see how you would represent things like Sting and the Hobbit's barrow blades without having rules for shortswords. You could call them "daggers" I suppose, but Tolkien clearly gave them more narrative weight. You mentioned that the other swords in Middle Earth were all longswords. While this is true in the movies, it seems to me Tolkien just called them "swords" without getting into technical definitions.

Don't misunderstand me. I have great sympathy for not wanting arms and armor that break cannon. I have no desire to see crossbows and plate armor in Middle Earth. But there also seems to be more room for variety than what you describe.

There seems to be a general misconception (especially since the movies came out and suggested, in movement as well as in voice, that Hobbits are just shrinked humans). Short and weak(er) people like Hobbits with smaller weapons do less damage (at least if the Hobbit is no Ninja). That's a fact. So Sting (besides its magic features of course) should be handled damage-wise like a kid stabbing someone with a knife and not like a grown up man with a long sword dealing heavy damage. Sting and the barrow blades are dagger sized and even when they would be bigger in size, it would propably be even more difficult for Hobbits to wield or swing them or stab somebody. Remember that the average Hobbit size is between 60 and 120 cm. That's just the height of 2 to 4 DIN A4 pages (!) in my country. Most newborns here are around 50 cm tall.
What I want to say is: Real short swords (gladius, spatha) are much too big and heavy for Hobbits to fight with. And I don't see a problem giving their daggers the appropriate narrative weight nevertheless. I mean even Legolas is fighting "only" with a knife. So: no weapon-shaming here (weapon-positivity!!!).
From a Hobbit-perspective these ARE (short) swords, but from a human's perspective, they are daggers. Same item, different perception.
That's like having a Troll Barbarian and a Gnome Scholar in your D&D party and both get the exact same amount of food on their plate. In TOR mechanics it magically sates both, but in "reality" what might be sufficient for the Gnome could never be enough for the Troll, because: they are different sizes. For the Gnome it's a full meal, for the Troll just an appetizer.
So I'm not sure if short swords in TOR should really be the same short sword size for Hobbits as for Humans. It's not the One Ring, who can shrink to fit Bilbo's finger as well as Sauron's paw.

The movies were not true to the book in displaying some swords as arming swords btw. Just have a look at the swords of Boromir, Eomer or Theoden. They are all arming swords. But according to the book even the Rohirrim have long swords. But you are right: the term "sword" was used differently depending on which historical period you observe. So a sword could be anything when called just sword, but when labelling them long swords it's clear that these are not one-handed weapons. Since we can't ask Tolkien anymore I think it's difficult to ever find out, what type of sword he had in mind when writing "long sword".

Regarding the short sword for your Strider-mode Ranger: Do you have a picture how exactly you imagine it to look like?

Short swords are canon, such as those carried by Isilduir and his men (https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Eket) or those carried by Dain’s troops at the battle of five armies. That’s beyond the repeated references to short swords with regard to hobbits.

Thanks, I just re-read this passage. But there' just this one mentioning where Isildur dumps all his war gear, except his eket, right? I see what you mean, but I would never see this as a full replacement for a (long) sword. According to its description (a short stabbing sword with a broad blade, pointed and two-edged, from a foot to one and a half feet long) it's rather a dagger used for parrying only (instead of using a shield) or for dealing the final deadly blow when finding a gap in the opponent's armour ("The Last Duel" anyone?) .

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/tolki ... -prefix=it

So I don't think anybody would go into a deadly fight with just this small weapon. But I'm no scientist, historian or scholar. It's just my feeling and my opinion.

Regarding Dain's army: Do you refer to the movie or the book?

The book.

The book.

Ok, I'm reading another translation at the moment but am just in the chapter where Smaug is going to destroy Esgaroth. But I'll have a look when the dwarves enter the scene.

Short swords are canon, such as those carried by Isilduir and his men (https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Eket) or those carried by Dain’s troops at the battle of five armies. That’s beyond the repeated references to short swords with regard to hobbits.

Thanks, I just re-read this passage. But there' just this one mentioning where Isildur dumps all his war gear, except his eket, right? I see what you mean, but I would never see this as a full replacement for a (long) sword. According to its description (a short stabbing sword with a broad blade, pointed and two-edged, from a foot to one and a half feet long) it's rather a dagger used for parrying only (instead of using a shield) or for dealing the final deadly blow when finding a gap in the opponent's armour ("The Last Duel" anyone?) .

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/tolki ... -prefix=it

So I don't think anybody would go into a deadly fight with just this small weapon. But I'm no scientist, historian or scholar. It's just my feeling and my opinion.

Regarding Dain's army: Do you refer to the movie or the book?

.
Short swords aren't all that small. However, the Dwarves of the Iron Hills carried not only short swords but also mattocks and shields.
.

Each one of [Dain's] folk was clad in a hauberk of steel mail that hung to his knees, and his legs were covered with hose of a fine and flexible metal mesh, the secret of whose making was possessed by Dain's peole. The dwarves are exceedingly strong for their height, but most of these were strong even for dwarves. In battle they wielded heavy two-handed mattocks; but each of them had also a short broad sword at his side and a roundshield slung at his back. Their beards were forked and plaited and thrust into their belts. Their caps were of iron and they were shod with iron, and their faces were grim.

.
About daggers: Daggers and knives can be pretty long--long and heavy enough to almost double as short swords themselves. The line can get pretty blurry.

What I want to say is: Real short swords (gladius, spatha) are much too big and heavy for Hobbits to fight with. And I don't see a problem giving their daggers the appropriate narrative weight nevertheless. I mean even Legolas is fighting "only" with a knife. So: no weapon-shaming here (weapon-positivity!!!).

Regarding the short sword for your Strider-mode Ranger: Do you have a picture how exactly you imagine it to look like?

This is what I mean by narrative weight. I'm looking at the end of The Black Gate Opens, in RotK. Here Tolkien describes Pippin slaying a great hill-troll chief: "...the written blade of Westerness pierced through the hide and went deep into the vitals of the troll, and his black blood came gushing out." That doesn't prove how big the blade was of course, but it's clearly dealing some serious damage. In Moria Sam slays an orc with: "...a sturdy thrust from his barrow blade."

It's possible we are working from different definitions of the various sword types. That's a massive topic that probably doesn't fit here. However, just because Tolkien describes a sword as "long" doesn't necessarily mean he is picturing a modern HEMA longsword. I'm not an expert on any of this as you can probably tell.

I can't figure out how to attach pictures to this. Basically something shorter than an arming sword, double-edge cutting/thrusting blade, crossguard, pommel, and single-handed grip. I'm not describing any particular historical sword. You just asked how I picture it.