>>64497620
In the words of Bernard Cornwell:
>He used a sword because a sword is the weapon of a King.
And no you WILL want plate when the enemy is using steel bodkin arrows.
>>64497702
>what little i've read about medieval knights always makes it sound like a pure nightmare.
It's worse being a peasant, you make do with leather and mail and pray the enemy bowmen don't have you in their sights
>their year's worth of wages put towards a custom-built metal shell.
Sort of
>not exactly something you COULD outfit an army with.
Yes, which is why it took a lot of resources to kit out a medieval army, and the quality of medieval plate varied greatly.
>let alone find in a dungeon chest and think, "wow great, time to stick this on."
You loot the dead to sell or trade, because you won't always find your enemy is the right size fit for you.
>>64497400
For poorfags, yes, but with a surcoat over it for identification and mud protection
For richfags you wear plate over mail
>>64500995
Hobbits are explicitly full-on noguns peacenik farmers in the books, with no army and barely any police.
That's part of the LOTR theme, specially the back chapter which the movies left out, of them realising that their idyllic peacenik life is no longer possible and the powers that used to protect them, i.e. the Elves, will now leave, and they're on their own now.
I can't remember if it's Gandalf or Aragorn himself who said in the first book that Aragorn and his Rangers protect the Shire from Sauron's forces
