What Did Tolkien's Sting Look Like?

[Uath]

Tolkien never described Sting, or any weapon, to any great extent.
Sting, along with Glamdring (Foe Hammer) and Orcrist (Goblin Cleaver) were taken from a troll hoard in The Hobbit. Gandalf, the wizard, caried Glamdring throughout the Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Thoren Oakenshield took Orcrist to his death. It was buried with him. Glamdring and Orcrist were both swords. Sting, taken by Bilbo Baggins and later given to Frodo, was a dagger.
All three were of ancient elvish manufacture. They had magical properties and actually glowed blue in the presence of goblin-kind.
Sting was directly described as a "dagger." For a Hobbit, it was almost big enough for a short sword. Bilbo stated thet it would only make a "pocket knife" for a troll.

What did these weapons look like?

These are the movie sword from The Lord Of The Rings

In movies and illustrations, the swords are usually represented as double edged, two-handed broadswords, almost Bastards. Glamdring is almost always depicted as double-handed. Orcrist usually is. Sting is usually pictured as a long, double-edged dagger, with distinct cross guard and pommel. These weapons resemble those from the High Middle Ages, or even Reniassance.
These depictions are a result of popular perception. Ask the average person to describe a sword, or a dagger. That's what you usually get, I have no doubt.
Sting is short enough to hide. Bilbo habitually carries it thrust inside his breeches. Anyone who has carried a knife in such a fashion knows that the blade can't extend past the knee. Hobbits are about 2-4 feet high, Bilbo is average height. Let's say he's 3'6". Figuring for normal anatomy, let's limit the blade length of Sting to 10 inches, probably less.

Some have claimed that Sting is described as leaf-shaped. I couldn't find that anywhere. The swords that Merry and Pippin took from the Barrow in The Fellowship were described as leaf-shaped. I don't think Sting was. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What do I think?

IMHO, Tolkien patterned his world not from the high midle ages, but from the world of the Anglo-Saxon/Norse. His imagery had more to do with Beowulf than Robin Hood.

Thus, his weapons would be Saxon weapons.

As far as Sting goes, the Saxons didn't distinguish between the words dagger and knife. I have no doubt they had double-edged knives, but not usually. I think in Tolkein's context "Dagger" meant fighting knife. He was a veteran of WWI they used plenty of daggers there, only they were called bayonets. They wern't double edged. Neither were the German "trench knives."
The Saxons had a special knife, beloved of my heart, the Seax. They were even named after them.
Seaxs were of all different sizes. They were more than knives, they carried cultural, and probably religous, significance. Only free men were allowed to carry Seaxs and they all did. There's evidence that even the poorest farmers carried these as tools and weapons.

Seaxs are thick, sturdy, single edged knives. They were usually carried edge-up in a horizontal sheath. As in our American West, knife-fighters were probably trained to hold their blades with the edge-side up. This lets you parry with the dull side more easily. Russian troops are still trained this way.

Here's what I think Sting looked like, far left:

( Here's a small norse Seax, reproduction from Urweg):

Here are the patterns for Glamdring and Orcrist:

What do you guys think??

 

[Hesparus]

Interesting topic. I have a lot of respect for the people who designed and made the weapons and armor for LoTR. That said, I did feel that the leaf-shaped blades for the elven weapons were a bit uninspired. Especially on glamdring — a leaf-shaped blade that long would have been really unwieldy due either to its weight or balance. Since it has an enormous pommel, I'd have to go with weight making it unwieldy.
You are probably right that tolkien may have been imagining norse weapons, but that does present a bit of an aesthetic problem for the movies. It would be hard to imagine elves not using weapons that look graceful, and that isn't a word I'd use to describe norse weapons. Beautiful, but not graceful. If, for example, sting had been designed as a broken-back seax, the audience might have assumed it was a dwarven weapon, not an elven one. The leaf shaped blades of sting and glamdring do look graceful. So does hadhafang, but the gracefulness was achieved in a way that made a lot more sense to me. Per your thought that the weapons should have had more of a viking feel, there is a hypothesis that says that all single-edged weapons in europe were the descendants of the seax (although another hypothesis says that sabers came from the mongols, but I digress). IMO, hadhafang is one of the best-designed weapons in the movie, along with what appear to be two-handed versions that are seen in the flashback to the last battle against sauron.
Perhaps I'm being naive, but I like to think that tolkien's world wasn't COMPLETELY based on norse mythology (even though large portions of it obviously were). Dwarves, giants, trolls, and hobbits clearly were, but I don't know about elves or a lot of the other creatures. Tolkien was well-read, so he certainly had lots of sources to draw upon that weren't norse. Keep in mind, too, that there are lots of cultures in middle earth and it would have been really lazy of tolkien to make them all norse.

- Chris

 

[Triton]

The only drawing I'm aware of that Tolkien actually did himself that shows weapons is:

Unfortunately this one is rather sketchy. The sword in the foreground does appear to be of Viking or Anglo Saxon type but the others may well be of a more medieval character although the arguement could be made either way.

With Tolkien I think one of two things applied:

1) He just didn't care about the weapons in detail all that much. (possible)
2) He deliberately kept them vague to leave them to the minds eye of the reader (more likely in my opinion).

As you say part of Tolkiens goal was to create a British Mythology similar to the Ring Cycle in Germany and he was obviously interested in all things Anglo Saxon. Therefore, your arguements are certainly plausible and may even capture the mental image that Tolkien himself had as he wrote the books (although to be honest when he says that the "dagger was as good as a short sword for the hobbit" I tend to think that he had a double edged dagger rather then a seax in mind). We have to remember that Tolkien was a linguist not an archeologist (the double bitted ax in the picture for example is pure fantasy) and may or may not have been aware of what was truly representative of any particular epoch. However, I don't think any truly definitive arguement can be made one way or another which means everyone can interpret (and indeed has) those weapons any way that they want to. I think Tolkien would be glad of that.

 

[silenthunterstudios]

I grew up reading Tolkein's books, even tackled the Silmarillion when I was about 12 or 13. I saw all three movies in the theaters, and have the extended editions of all three movies. I am ashamed to admit that I do not remember the name of Elendil's sword, but I have always wanted to see what Tolkein thought it would look like. Swords got a lot of attention in the Nordic sagas, I believe, and I bet that Tolkein put a viking twist on many, not just the Rohirrim. In the movie, Theoden and his men had one handed viking style swords. It would be neat to think that Sting was a viking seax, but I don't think that Tolkien wrote it that way. To some knife nuts, leaf shaped blades might mean Spydercos to some .

Tolkien was an artist, and I would like to know if he ever painted any of his characters with weapons.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Given that Tolkien was primarily a linguist and built his stories around language, I'd say it's fair to assume he had only a general concept of the swords in his mind. Following the tradition of the Norse sagas and mythology that he was so fond of, the visual description of things tends towards the minimal side, focusing more on events happening. This lack of visual detail is noted in the movie extras by the art team, saying that it allowed them to have a lot of leeway in deciding what everything looked like.

For an author who was an artist, and wrote accordingly, I suggest the Gormenghast novels by Mervyn Peake.

 

[Triton]

Tolkien was an artist, and I would like to know if he ever painted any of his characters with weapons.

See above. As far as I can tell this is the only Tolkien artwork that shows weapons at all. The rest shows things like the inside of the Hobbit hole, Beorn's house, landscapes etc. I would love for someone to prove me wrong though. If one of you guys knows of other pictures pony them up.

 

[Uath]

Tolkien was deeply involved in Anglo-Saxon history, linguistic and otherwise. He read and studied Runes (I've written Runes for years. I'm a retired teacher. I used to write notes to myself in Runes so nobody could read them. I used Tolkien's "Y"). I can't believe, with his depth of understanding the Anglo-Saxon world; literature, linguistics, and custom, that he didn't take a passing interest in what the Saxon's (Geat's) actual weapons would look like. England has a wealth of artifacts and museums were hugely attended.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the UK and Ireland have more archaelogical examples of broken-back seaxs than anywhere, Norway included.

By the way, I've heard argument that Beowulf the epic, was actually set in Kent, England. The Geats were definitely allied with the Jutes. Some believe they were the same people. That would mean Beowulf himself would have come from Denmark, or Southern Sweden.

How about axes???
Here's a Dwarven axe for you:

 

[not2sharp]

See above. As far as I can tell this is the only Tolkien artwork that shows weapons at all. The rest shows things like the inside of the Hobbit hole, Beorn's house, landscapes etc. I would love for someone to prove me wrong though. If one of you guys knows of other pictures pony them up.

Tolkien originally wrote the Hobbit as a children's book. It shouldn't surprise us that the small details were left vague.

n2s

 

[Triton]

Tolkien was deeply involved in Anglo-Saxon history, linguistic and otherwise. He read and studied Runes (I've written Runes for years. I'm a retired teacher. I used to write notes to myself in Runes so nobody could read them. I used Tolkien's "Y"). I can't believe, with his depth of understanding the Anglo-Saxon world; literature, linguistics, and custom, that he didn't take a passing interest in what the Saxon's (Geat's) actual weapons would look like. England has a wealth of artifacts and museums were hugely attended.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the UK and Ireland have more archaelogical examples of broken-back seaxs than anywhere, Norway included.

By the way, I've heard argument that Beowulf the epic, was actually set in Kent, England. The Geats were definitely allied with the Jutes. Some believe they were the same people. That would mean Beowulf himself would have come from Denmark, or Southern Sweden.

How about axes???
Here's a Dwarven axe for you:

I don't think I've ever definitively read anything about his interest in weapons one way or another. One supposes that if he were truly interested in them however he would have spent more time on their descriptions in the books instead of leaving things so vague. The only thing we truly have to go on (that I'm aware of) is the vague description in the books and the picture posted above. These things leave the reader all sorts of latitude in their mind's eye which I suspect may have been the deliberate intent as noted above. If you imagine Sting as a seax I don't think anyone can definitively tell you that you are wrong... but I don't think they can definitively tell you that you are right either.

On edit (you got me curious enough to look):

From "Flies and Spiders": "Then the battle began. Some of the dwarves had knives and some had sticks, and all of them could get at stones; and Bilbo had his elvish dagger."

So in this sentence we have the "knives" of the dwarves juxtaposed against the "elvish dagger" of Bilbo. Again, there's nothing that proves that a "dagger" is double edged weapon, certainly rondel and ballock daggers often only have a single edge and Tolkien does call Sting a "knife" as well earlier on.

Also from "Flies and Spiders": "Out came his little sword."

Would you call a seax a sword, even a little one? I wouldn't but again that's my interpretation.

Again in "The Choices of Master Samwise" it talks about Sam grasping the "hilt of the sword" as Shelob comes thundering down on him from above. Now we can certainly say that there were sword hilted seaxes because there are (in fact your order from Ben is one as are both of my own) but again my interpretation is that Tolkien probably meant it to be a sword.

That however is MY interpretation and I would certainly never tell you that you were wrong, because the fact is that nothing says that you are and indeed you are just as correct as I am.

 

[Uath]

Great research!

I think that Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as kind of a fairy tale. Great daring-do with dragons and wizards. Snow White isn't too far off in a way. Later came The Lord Of The Rings, where his world became one that was much...more real? Look how the ring itself changed from a fun magical trick to something so much more.

Sting has become forever in history an Archer's-style shortsword:

What about the Hilt??????
All of the movies have Sting's hilt porportioned for a Hobbit. That's just wrong. The hilt wold have been built for a much larger hand. It just goes to show you can't talk logic with elves.

 

[Triton]

Great research!

I think that Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as kind of a fairy tale. Great daring-do with dragons and wizards. Snow White isn't too far off in a way. Later came The Lord Of The Rings, where his world became one that was much...more real? Look how the ring itself changed from a fun magical trick to something so much more.

Absolutely correct, the Hobbit was a bedtime story for Tolkien's son Christopher as N2S mentions above, as such like you say Snow White isn't too far off (I really like that bit of imagery). There are all sorts of anachronisms in there I mean seriously waistcoats? Tolkien found to his chagrin after the crazy success of the Hobbit that for good or ill he was stuck with some of those things and had to explain them, work them in or ignore them as best he could. Things don't always link up quite right and Tolkien had to go and invent back story after the fact. Glorifindel showing up to escort the Hobbits to Rivendell for example when Glorifindel had been inconveniently killed by a Balrog well before Sauron lost the Ring etc.

What about the Hilt??????
All of the movies have Sting's hilt porportioned for a Hobbit. That's just wrong. The hilt wold have been built for a much larger hand. It just goes to show you can't talk logic with elves.

You know I never thought about it but that's a good point! Of course the movie swords have other things missing as well. Glamdring is supposed to have jewels in the hilt based on the description in the Hobbit for example. Again, interpretation I guess... Also reforging Narsil into Anduril gives me the heebie jeebies. The only way I would have carried Anduril would have been if that "reforging" included melting Narsil down and reforging a blade out of the pieces.

 

[Alvaro Candanedo]

I would like to congratulate all who have contributed their thougths to this topic. I'm also a reader of Tolkien (beginning with "The Silmarillion" and ending with "The Return of the King") and I'm not really sure that Tolkien based this saga only in Norse models.
Of corse, I'm not a scholar on Tolkien nor an archaelogist or historian. However, there is this book "The World of Tolkien" by David Day (Gramercy Books), where the author analyzes the mythological sources of the LOTR. Regarding the weapons, for instance, the Rohirrim would be the equivalent of the Goths, in the time of the Late Roman Empire, during the the Battle of Chalons against the Huns.
That being the case, their swords would be like the swords of the time of the Migrations: not wholly roman, not wholly Norse.
My point is: being Tolkien a scholar, he would probably knew about different cultures and their weapons, which he then portrayed in his books, and it would be a mistake to assume that all the weapons described would be Norse-Viking. In "The return of the King", when he speaks of the Southerners, he migth have been thinking arabs-africans.
As I said, just my 0.02 on this very interesting topic.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

You know I never thought about it but that's a good point! Of course the movie swords have other things missing as well. Glamdring is supposed to have jewels in the hilt based on the description in the Hobbit for example. Again, interpretation I guess... Also reforging Narsil into Anduril gives me the heebie jeebies. The only way I would have carried Anduril would have been if that "reforging" included melting Narsil down and reforging a blade out of the pieces.

Al Massey did an experiment to see if he could reforge a broken blade. He cut one of his pieces in half to simulate the break, then split the ends of each piece, and scarfed them over each other before forge welding it all back together. It was a difficult and time-consuming process that resulted in a slightly shorter sword, but he beat the crap out of it to see if it would hold and it did. :thumbup:

 

[Triton]

If memory serves correctly Michael "Tinker" Pierce did an experiment to see if he could reforge a broken blade. He cut one of his pieces in half to simulate the break, then split the ends of each piece, and scarfed them over each other before forge welding it all back together. It was a difficult and time-consuming process that resulted in a slightly shorter sword, but he beat the crap out of it to see if it would hold and it did. :thumbup:

It seems like I remember that, it was Al Massey though wasn't it? I don't know if I ever heard the results of the testing though. Interesting to hear that it actually worked even without elven magic. I think I'd still want a new sword though, when my lifes on the line I'm thinking I don't want something that they got on consignment somewhere....

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Oohhhh good memory! It's been years since I read that old thread. Looked it up again, and sure enough, it was Al Massey. Post corrected.

What's even more impressive was that it only shortened up the blade by about an inch after everything was said and done! It also was smacked repeatedly into an oak stump and was flexed in a vice.

 

[Triton]

I would like to congratulate all who have contributed their thougths to this topic.

I'd like to tell Uath "thanks!" for coming up with two interesting topics here recently. Mostly all this forum has been for a while is "where can I buy an uber chitana for 9.95?" Or alternately "tell me how good this 9.95 uber chitana is."

I'm also a reader of Tolkien (beginning with "The Silmarillion" and ending with "The Return of the King") and I'm not really sure that Tolkien based this saga only in Norse models.

Agreed, there are definitely Norse, Germanic (okay those are pretty Norselike too) Irish and others in there. Gondor always reminds me of Byzantium for example.

Of corse, I'm not a scholar on Tolkien nor an archaelogist or historian. However, there is this book "The World of Tolkien" by David Day (Gramercy Books), where the author analyzes the mythological sources of the LOTR. Regarding the weapons, for instance, the Rohirrim would be the equivalent of the Goths, in the time of the Late Roman Empire, during the the Battle of Chalons against the Huns.

That's a new one on me. Interesting thought.

That being the case, their swords would be like the swords of the time of the Migrations: not wholly roman, not wholly Norse.

Again, I can't tell you this is wrong, but it does assume that Tolkien knew something of Gothic weapons.

In "The return of the King", when he speaks of the Southerners, he migth have been thinking arabs-africans.
As I said, just my 0.02 on this very interesting topic.

I agree with that, I think that when I think "Southrons" too. It could have been Indians also with the Oliuphant. He also talks about the orcish scimitars in the Fellowship of the Ring.

 

[SeaxyBeast]

Agree with those who point out that Tolkien was a writer. As far as his sources go, he was a philologist who studied Anglo Saxon literature, but who had read Norse and Welsh literature as well and had a fascination with languages. I wouldn't be surprised to find he was fascinated by ancient weapons, but his big things were language and history. The medievalists I know humble me with their knowledge of languages and historical detail and context, but I generally know far more about ancient weapons and fighting tactics than they do. I'd be surprised to find that Tolkien had a very nuanced knowledge of swords and edged weapons at all. Id bet that most of what he knew about them came from the descriptions in sagas and poems and his names for weapons match very closely to the kennings found in Snorri's Edda, with its list of poetic names for weapons for poets. If it were William Morris, on the other hand, I'd figure him to have tried to design a sword or two and not just dream up names for them.

If I were a prop designer aiming at creating believable technology for Middle Earth on the same level that Prof. Tolkien obsessed over its language I'd figure on no weapon being of higher technology than 12th C. types (Oakeshott XI or so). Elvish weapons would be better balanced and quicker and dwarvish weapons would carry their POB a little farther out for cleaving power. Wiki lists the armor mentioned in the books as being mostly chain or scale, so the swords would favor cutting power over piercing power in line with 8th to 12th C. weapons.

Since Tolkien describes Sting as both a dagger and a knife, compares it to a short sword, and mentions a hilt I'd guess that it is double-edged and has a pommel and crossguard. Since it is a knife for an elf but a short sword for a hobbit I'd put its length between 17 and 21 inches. If it was to be used against mail at that length it would need a sturdy point to make up for the lack of weight and leverage, so a wider blade with a long, tapering point and less distal taper than a corresponding sword for strength in the tip as well as balance.

 

[Alvaro Candanedo]

Triton, regarding your comment about Tolkien knowing about goths and their weapons, I want to believe that there are certain similarities with the doctors. Doctors tend to specialize (Cardiology, Surgery, etc.), but keep a basic knowledge of different fields, because you learn it in Med. School, but also because you are in contact with colleagues of differents fields. Tolkien was an Oxford professor and most probably exchanged ideas with other scholars about many periods of History, so he at least had to have a basic (or very ample) knowledge about the Roman Empire, Byzantium, etc. The book I mentioned before compare LOTR to certains aspect of the greek and vikings myths, and says that The Silmarillion "was to be based in the Finnish national epic, the Kalevala". Also, speaking of the Great Spider, Ungoliant, it says that is inspired in the goddess Kali, of hindu mythology.
Heck, I'm a physician and have a basic knowledge of certain periods in History, their weapons, battles etc., because I like to read. Now, an Oxford scholar......

 

[Triton]

Triton, regarding your comment about Tolkien knowing about goths and their weapons, I want to believe that there are certain similarities with the doctors. Doctors tend to specialize (Cardiology, Surgery, etc.), but keep a basic knowledge of different fields, because you learn it in Med. School, but also because you are in contact with colleagues of differents fields. Tolkien was an Oxford professor and most probably exchanged ideas with other scholars about many periods of History, so he at least had to have a basic (or very ample) knowledge about the Roman Empire, Byzantium, etc. The book I mentioned before compare LOTR to certains aspect of the greek and vikings myths, and says that The Silmarillion "was to be based in the Finnish national epic, the Kalevala". Also, speaking of the Great Spider, Ungoliant, it says that is inspired in the goddess Kali, of hindu mythology.
Heck, I'm a physician and have a basic knowledge of certain periods in History, their weapons, battles etc., because I like to read. Now, an Oxford scholar......

Alvaro, what you are saying is certainly plausible and reasonable. How could someone NOT be interested in weapons and with swords in particular... Says a fellow swordophile.

 

[Uath]

OK, I think we're all forgetting one thing. Bilbo, and probably Frodo too, habitually carried Sting thrust down their breeches.
Try that yourself.
The ONLY way it can work is if the blade comes to no more than the top of the knee cap. I'm 5'11" the longest blade I can get away with wearing like that is 16". Even that's too long, raising your knee is impaired, to say the least.
Hobbits are 2-4 feet tall, 2 feet probably being a small woman, 4 feet the tallest adult men. Frodo was decribed as "average" height for a hobbit. Let's be generous and make him 3'6".

I think Sting could only have a 10" blade max.

On the other side, carrying the sword down your breeches is an excellent argument for a substantial cross-guard.
How about a scabbard?