: But are we to suppose that the knives in the Barrow were the
: only ones the Men of Arthedain ever made to slay their enemy,
: the King of Angmar? If I were them, I'd have made as many as
: I could, within reason anyway.

The story is the story. Merry gets his blade from Bombadil, not from scrounging around Dunadan ruins on his own, not from Aragorn (why would Aragorn give weapons to hobbits he thinks cannot take care of themselves anyway?).

: I think that, had the hobbits not met Bombadil nor gone to the
: Barrow-downs, they could have encountered the same sort of
: weapons elsewhere. One likely possibility is Rivendell's
: armory.

Elrond doesn't seem to have had a great store of weapons.

: ::snip
: : Pippin and Merry cannot bond with Treebeard without him

: I have no idea what you are talking about here. What role did
: Bombadil have in the relationship between the hobbits and
: Treebeard?

What do you think Treebeard was talking to Merry and Pippin about when he was asking them all those questions about the Old Forest and Bombadil?

: : Frodo isn't prepared to accept the journey over Sea without
: : him, etc. Bombadil is felt throughout the story, right up
: : until the very end.

: I don't know what you're talking about here, either, unless it
: is in reference to some of the dreams that Frodo had under
: Bombadil's roof.

Yes.

: I like Tom as a character, and an anachronism. But if you
: take away Tom and the Barrow-downs, and the restriction on
: what weapons can harm the Witch-King, and the story works just
: the same.

The story is broken without Bombadil, irreparably broken, and you have to make uncanonical substitutions to replace him. It is no longer Tolkien's story.

------------------
Xenite.Org: Science Fiction and Fantasy