This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Caspian's Sword

Please don't close the door behind you.

Caspian's Sword

Postby Solomons Song » 30 Dec 2009, 14:51

I just noticed that the sword Caspian is carrying in one of the leaked pictures on the new VDT movie looks like Rhindon. Surely... SURELY... SURELY... NOT!! :stunned:

Image

Image
Member of the "2453617 Club"
Image
User avatar
Solomons Song
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Morristown, Tennessee, USA

Re: Caspian's Sword

Postby archenland_knight » 30 Dec 2009, 16:07

Well, the books don't mention the sword being Rhindon, but Caspian is king of Narnia in VODT. And Peter isn't coming back. I think it would be okay if he used Rhindon.

The only real issue is that Rhindon was sized for a older boy, not a full-grown man. Unless the magic of Father Christmas causes it to grow as it's wielder grows.
Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
User avatar
archenland_knight
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Obviously at a computer keyboard

Re: Caspian's Sword

Postby nomad » 04 Jan 2010, 19:42

The only real issue is that Rhindon was sized for a older boy, not a full-grown man.


:lol: That's a detail only a true fan would think about. :thumbsup:
member of the 2456317 club
"Well," said Pooh, "what I like best -- " and then he had to stop and think. Because although Eating Honey was a very good thing to do, there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better than when you were, but he didn't know what it was called.
User avatar
nomad
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: I wish I knew

Re: Caspian's Sword

Postby carol » 04 Jan 2010, 22:35

The boy in the film was played as 15 - not very much smaller than his full-grown self.
If it was magically still in good condition by PC, then I have no problem with its being still the right size for the boy at 16/17. Caspian at the same age was taller than Peter, and handled the sword without problems.
How big is a sword meant to be anyway?
Image
carol
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 3669
Joined: Apr 1999
Location: New Zealand

Re: Caspian's Sword

Postby archenland_knight » 05 Jan 2010, 20:12

Carol wrote:How big is a sword meant to be anyway?


Oh my. That depends on a great many factors. The Roman gladius, used by legionaries in battle, was short and broad. This made it easy to handle in the close quarters of ancient combat and made it easy to get it around your own shield to strike at your opponent. It was primarily a thrusting weapon, and the width was meant to make a nasty, nasty hole as it went in.

Of course, being short, it meant the wielder had to be fairly close before the hole it made would be very deep.

On the other hand, a Medieval knight, especially when fighting from horseback, needed a longer sword, with a well-weighted handle to counter-balance the longer blade. You will notice many such swords have a very thick portion of the blade (thick ... not wide) near the handle that doesn't even have an edge on it. This was to put the "business end" of the sword out further from the user while maintaining strength of the blade. Also, by not putting an edge on that part of the sword (it has a name, I just can't think of it), it allowed the wielder to actually grip it above the hilt for extra thrusting strength, or to parry blows from a powerful opponent. It worked both ways though. A quick opponent could conceivably grasp your blade there himself.

Very large swords, such as the claymore, were useful if you expected your opponent to be wearing armor. The weight and momentum of such a sword enabled it to crush armor in on an opponent, or even to penetrate it. But if your opponent was unencumbered by armor, sometimes he could simply evade strikes with such a sword.

A small, thin blade, of course, can be whisked about faster than a larger sword, but if they opponent is wearing plate mail armor, you will be at a disadvantage. Sometimes a very thin blade could thrust between the links of chain mail. That was always a nasty surprise.

Then of course there's the whole subject of metallurgy to consider. Could the people of your particular era even make a sword the size you wanted without it breaking?

Remember the account of David and Goliath in the Bible? Remember how it talks about how "oversized" Golaith's spear and his breastplate were? If you look closely, you will see that it does not mention the size of his sword. It says he HAD one(David used it to decapitate him), but it isn't mentioned as being oversized. Why is that? Quite simply, metallurgy at the time simply hadn't advanced to the point to allow them to make such an oversized weapon without compromising it's strength.

David later says of that sword, "There is none like it", but that doesn't indicate it was oversized. David wields it with no problem. He was probably speaking merely of it's quality, for a warrior of Goliath's reputation would have had a sword of the finest craftsmanship of his day. He might have meant that it was one of the earliest iron swords ... which is that much more reason that it could not have been made very large. Note that Goliath's armor was all bronze. So, either the sword was bronze, which means you can only make it so long without compromising strength, or it was very early iron work, which would have the same problem. And while someday blacksmiths would probably have been able to make him an oversized sword, it is doubtful that such technology was yet available.


In short, the question "how big should a sword be?" could easily be the subject of a book from the standpoint of someone who actually knew what they were talking about.
Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
User avatar
archenland_knight
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Obviously at a computer keyboard

Re: Caspian's Sword

Postby glumPuddle » 01 Mar 2010, 06:51

I really don't like Caspian using Rhindon. I feel like it would be displayed somewhere and treated with reverence. To Caspian, it is an ancient artifact that belonged to one of Narnia's legendary heroes.

Caspian's awe of the four kings and queens was kind of lost in the PC movie. Hoping this isn't a sign that it will still be lost in VDT.
Image <---Click
Chronological Order: 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956
User avatar
glumPuddle
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: United States

Re: Caspian's Sword

Postby matdonna » 02 Mar 2010, 04:01

archenland_knight wrote:The only real issue is that Rhindon was sized for a older boy, not a full-grown man. Unless the magic of Father Christmas causes it to grow as it's wielder grows.


that is the kind of idea that used to earn fans the fabled no-prize from Marvel comics. Well done. :-)
User avatar
matdonna
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 401
Joined: Oct 2006

Re: Caspian's Sword

Postby archenland_knight » 02 Mar 2010, 05:16

Matadonna wrote:that is the kind of idea that used to earn fans the fabled no-prize from Marvel comics. Well done. :-)


Ah yes, but I was a DC fan, and in the DC universe such things are just par for the course. The whole "Infinite Earths" situation comes to mind. Another example would be the explanation of why, when Superman lifts something ridiculously huge like a luxury cruise ship, the ship actually lifts instead of the hull just tearing through when he tries to lift it. (The explanation, btw, was that he was a tactile telekinetic, and thus the same "aura" that made him invincible and gave him the ability to fly held the aforementioned boat together.)

I just can't see Stan Lee going for something like that, can you?
Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
User avatar
archenland_knight
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Obviously at a computer keyboard

Re: Caspian's Sword

Postby andi1235 » 18 Mar 2010, 19:39

We know from the books that he brought along the Treasures - otherwise he wouldn't have had Lucy's Cordial. I can't remember the exact quote, and I don't have my books handy (I'm at work), but if he brought one of the Treasures, why not the others? The sword definitely qualifies. And since he's King now, it should be okay for him to use it. Aslan made him king, after all! :)

-Andi :)
andi1235
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mar 2010

Re: Caspian's Sword

Postby Sheroo of Stormness Head » 05 May 2010, 03:13

The actual quote is "'If I had my old cordial with me I could cure him.' 'But you have,' said Caspian. 'I'd quite forgotten about it. As you left it behind I thought it might be regarded as one of the toyal treasures and so I brought it--if you think it out to be wasted on a thing like seasickness.'"
I'm all for Caspian using Peter's sword. In the movie, Peter did give it to Caspian, and I thought that was a very nice touch.
User avatar
Sheroo of Stormness Head
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Feb 2010


Return to The Chronicles of Narnia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 5 guests