Is Leather Armor really BS?

There are a lot of reenactors and “historical scholars” who want to tell you that “leather armor” never existed.  They tell you that because the movie makers are putting women (and men) in these bondage looking leather “armors” that fantasy leather armor not only didn’t exist, but that it would have been complete BS had it existed.

Guess what?  That’s the beauty behind FANTASY!  OK, Fantasy is not my only argument here.  But before I attempt to explain my position, let me rip theirs apart.  Just because movie leather armor looks stupid, with studs in the weirdest places and cut outs in the wrong spots does not mean that leather armor could not have existed.  That would be like arguing that because fantasy artists like to put women in cheesecake chain mail that all mailes were BS.  Guess what - Chain mail works!  OK, it doesn’t stop everything, but it beats wearing nothing!

And that’s the point about leather armor!  It was better than nothing.  The vast majority of the NPCs in my game who wear leather armor are the foresters.  These folks would be moving through a forest where they would encounter thorns, burrs, and generally pointed sticks.  They are not wearing supple suede like you find on a woman’s purse.  They are instead wearing 6-9oz leather (that’s the thick stuff).  Would it stop an arrow from a war bow?  No!  Flat out No!  Would it stop a rose bush - probably.

What about studded leather?  Well, the way Legend Quest sees studded leather, the studs are actually specialized rivets made to be about the size of a quarter (that’s 24.26mm for you non-USA folks).  A stud that is more like 4mm is useless, but a pattern of these larger studs, just might be lucky enough to stop a slashing weapon from cutting all the way through.  And this is the point!  Just like a gambeson will often prevent a slashing weapon from cutting skin or serve to partially cushion a bludgeoning weapon, so too can leather or studded leather armor serve.

Now, if you are playing a game where leather armor stands up to knights charging on horseback with lances, your game rules are goofy.  You shouldn’t have needed a “historian” to tell you that.  Am I saying these reenactors are wrong?  No.  But like so many folks arguing on the internet, they are making a very specific argument then pretending that the answer there extends far more broadly than it really should.

It is true that neither cheesecake chain mail nor supple leather armor will stop a broadsword, an 8’ spear, or a morning star.  But this fact does not mean that all leather armors (and I do believe most of these guys are only fighting the supple leather armors) are complete BS - their words.  Look, if my choices were walking out onto a battlefield wearing full plate or leather, of course I would choose plate.  If my choices were supple leather or a loin cloth - I’d choose supple leather.  Just because I want better doesn’t mean I could afford it.

Look, I do see leather armor as gambeson with a layer of leather on the outside, which is not what is most commonly depicted in the movies.  My studded leather actually has large “buttons” that could serve to get in the way of something.  My hardened leather and (leather) lamellar are a bit more accepted by the “scholars”.  Any and all of these can work effectively in a fantasy game, and are not unbelievable in a realistic setting.  You just need to know what you expect from armor.  Weak armor is weak, but historic or not, it’s still useful.