>>718266129
Go to any historyfag youtube channel. One of their oldest videos is probably going to be either about "ridiculous overdesigned fantasy weapons" or the leather armor meme.
In history there was never any leather armor. It's a complete fiction invented by Dungeons and Dragons. It's probably not even their fault, maybe they meant to refer to the real thing, but players interpreted it differently. The closest thing to leather armor is a leather cuirass, which has some sort of metal on it for protection, like metal plates. The other closest thing to it would be a Gambeson, which was the core part of any kind of armor. Everyone, even knights wearing armor, would always wear a Gambeson underneath. It's basically cloth armor, but thick and very padded. Many levies could only afford a Gambeson and nothing else, so also in a mechanical way Gambeson fits the realistic version of what leather armor is supposed to be, because it's the cheapest armor you can afford. Even though it's technically cloth armor and not leather armor. It's also what makes all of the archery/crossbow tests, where pop historians prove that plate armor could be pierced, useless, because they are only ever testing their weapons on naked plate armor, which has nothing underneath, not even a fake person (and you would never wear armor on your naked skin). To prove that you could hurt a knight with a long bow (which has never been historically proven, where they were wearing their full armor AND had their visors down), you would have to pierce his armor and all of the padding underneath, which is physically impossible.
