Non-Fic Medieval mythbusting (arrows vs breastplates)

It is possible for this kind of armor to exist back in the medieval era but those can only possibly account to those that are state of the art mastercrafted piece. Something that probably as expensive as it rare as fighter jet in our time.

Development of warfare in Europe do also suggests that armor fell out of favor while the longbows and crossbows kept being used. The rigid steel sheet like breastplates are worn originally to protect the wearers from sword slash which is consistent to historical account that warfare are mainly fought with spears and arrows.

 

Yeap. Even arrows cost a lot. I mean, imagine all the goose slaughtered for the stuffs. Like the feathers, the kidneys, the beeswax, the amount of wood (a spesific one, I think, they mentioned it). All that materials and man-hours. I can't even imagine the effort for the armour.

 

People don't have a HP bar, combat doesn't work like that. It's a binary system that does not have percentages, you either penetrate or you don't. It's something like a tank of today, you can hose it with millions of rounds but the chances of you "killing" one is nonesensical that there isn't even percentages to it. If something isn't going to penetrate, it isn't. You might hit something else that can be problematic but it won't be what is covered by that armor, not directly at least (not accounting for ricohcet coming from below and bypassing etc).