Thread:Barangolo/@comment-29773086-20180202195427/@comment-33763020-20180203184218

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with some of your points.

You agree that something may still exist that is not specifically mentioned, as you state that something does not exist in Middle-earth if its creator did not make mention of it AND it is not a "logical" extension of other things he mentioned. The latter leaves a lot of free interpretation, since logic is a non-existent thing in fiction: logic can only be followed on clear terms, which do not apply to fictional events or non-explainable phenomena, such as magic or things that show no relation to our universe. As mithril is a non-explained material as such and its physical peculiarities only partly described, it is unclear how it functions and the only logical conclusions we can draw is parallels with our universe to similar materials or the way it was used in Middle-earth. Either that or allowing ourselves to fill the gaps of things not explained. An example is the possible ways of use of materials. This way, mithril could well have been used in any possible means, especially since the book mentions " The Elves dearly loved it, and among many uses they made of it ithildin, starmoon, which you saw upon the doors. "  "Many uses" leaves this open for interpretation and in my opinion aligns with your statement that it can be a logical extension of what Tolkien wrote. Especially since creating both weapons and armour requires materials with special characteristics. Mithril had some special characteristics in Middle-earth, no wonder it was so valuable.

I agree that the word "unique" is perhaps not fully the proper way to call mithril as a material for weapons. A more accurate word would have been "extremely rare", but the fact that it can only be mined in one region is not a matter of rarity, but of uniqueness as well. Anyway, use of this word is less relevant than the purpose of the material.

The aspects I described for the combat aspect were for a reason, it seems you dismissed my other arguments without rationales: as I described, the weight is just one aspect of a weapon. Form, function, balance, sharpness are other important ones, besides others. The one aspect you describe only lends a weapon useful for that singular use, a direct parry, being only one aspect of defense, while neglecting its further defense uses or for attacks, within which category especially thrusting versus slashing/cutting. Within this type of parrying, I touched upon speed of movement, where clearly lighter materials make for a faster parry. To explain by way of example: try pushing a car 5 meters, time it, then do same for a bycicle and time that in comparison. The example is of course extreme, but so is the (assumed) difference of mithril versus iron for example. This test shows how much faster the parry reaches the point of contact with the attacking force, being the ideal point of defense. Don't imagine blocking as a force-against-force, but as a pivotal movement especially, as direct blocking is one of the least usual ways of a swordfight, diverting the attack force being much more important. Direct blocking is much more relevant for armour than for weapons and I haven't even touched on balance yet, where the blade may be of  the lightest material and the sword still as heavy as other swords due weigting at the shaft for example or slide-in forms allowing for a sharp mithril blade in an iron mold. As swordfights rely greatly on reflexes to place your sword ideally at the right position, most of the time actually the weight of a parry is secondary to the time you need to put your blade at the right position to receive the blow. If you're too late (as your blade is slower) the opponent not only gains more momentum, but can also reach a critical position that you can no longer parry. Hence the importance of speed over weight, where not only total weight but balance is crucial as well.

This is just one aspect of the material however: the fact that it is a much harder material, means that to achieve a certain sharpness of the blade, the molecular structure can remain much more intact at even thinner layers, assuming it is a metal (which would seem logical if it's used for a chain-mail, since keeping those forms requires a bendable material after heating, which would not be possible in the case of a non-linear molecular structure such as carbides). Sharpness is a matter of how thinly you can sharpen the blade and not making it fragile by being too thin, only metals can achieve that optimally. In other words: the harder the material on a metal structure, the sharper the blade's edge and the less it is likely to break. Mithril as a fictitous material lends itself, based on its description, as one of the best materials to make good sharp blades with, without being brittle to break. Getting back to your statement of logic, this would mean that based on what Tolkien thought about it, it lends itself as a natural material to make weapons of, even if not explicitly mentioned. Of course he did not find it useful to explain metallurgy deeply in his works (assuming he had studied materials at all), so logic dictates we draw these conclusions ourselves, the same way we assume that chainmail is based on forged and formed metal, since other materials would be too brittle.

If we assume that our real-world logic does not apply however, then we assume logic does not exist, in which case ANY material lends itself for ANY use.