Armor through ages. As as anything.

[Guy]

Greek linen armor was several layers of linen glued together. The end result was rather like a thick cloth with a coat of resin and from what I understand pretty effective.

 

[Malik]

Greek linen armor was several layers of linen glued together. The end result was rather like a thick cloth with a coat of resin and from what I understand pretty effective.

I imagine it would be. It's basically Kevlar.

As to non-metallic armors, leather armor -- cuir bouilli, not hide -- was very likely the go-to for the budget-conscious warrior.

When vegetable-tanned leather is submerged in boiling water, the fixed tannin aggregates in the leather begin to melt. Leave it in hot water long enough, and the tannin aggregates create a resin that redistributes itself throughout the fibers of the leather. Upon cooling, the resin-soaked fibers become, for all intents and purposes, a polymer: malleable when hot, and cooling to a hardness that rivals high-impact plastics today. A curved surface of polymerized leather will turn a blade.

Design-wise, you can do some really cool stuff with cuir bouilli. It wasn't expensive (as armor goes, I'd imagine), it was easy to work with, and it was extremely effective. I believe that it was used a lot more than we realize, but it's not represented historically because it would rot away over the centuries.

I talked about blade deflection above. Two things to keep in mind, here: First, the main purpose of armor isn't to stop a blow, but to redirect it. Second, a major part of armor's effectiveness, whether it's a mail hauberk or a modern soldier's plate carrier, is that armor primarily protects you from the minor pain in the ass injuries that would otherwise whittle you down and throw you off your game. You can fight longer, and fight harder, in armor because you're not getting the crap beaten out of you every second.

A direct blow with a battlefield weapon -- axe, mace, greatsword, hammer, poleaxe -- into pretty much any armor short of full 15th-Century harness is going to render you horizontal and will very likely kill you without immediate medical attention. Shock, tension pneumothorax, contused organs, spinal injuries, perforated eardrums, dislocations, and brain damage are all perfectly attainable even in full field harness. A horseman's pick, Lucerne hammer, or bec de corbin will perforate full harness; if it does, cancel Christmas.

In modern-day military armor, you can sustain a 30-caliber rifle round center mass to your chest plate; it won't kill you, but you'll wish it had for a while. When the plate absorbs a round it shatters, which really smarts. It's backed with Kevlar to keep the pieces from murdering you. Meanwhile, your buddies are dragging you to cover because you're sure as hell not going anywhere on your own; you're too busy lying there making little creaking noises and reflecting on your life decisions with dismay.

The point I'm making here is that, when it comes down to living vs. dying on the field, the difference between most types of armor is negligible until you get into the really expensive stuff. If you get hit hard, you get injured. (The difference is, having NO armor is idiotic. Oberyn Martell was a moron. Ditto Legolas.)

That warrior "getting by" with cheaper armor isn't really giving up that much in the grand scheme of things.

 

[WPT]

Out of Curiosity, how effective are arrows against plate armour- would arrows penetrate deep enough through the plate and gambeson to cause serious injury? I know war bows are pretty powerful, but will the arrows deflect of the armour or will they penetrate?

The military museum at the Tower of London displays two types of arrows used with longbows. One type has the conventional rather broad, flat arrow point sharpened along the edge. The other type has a forged tip that is no larger than the shaft, roughly a third of an inch (about 1 cm), is three to four inches long with a square cross section and tapers slowly down to a sharp point. I don't know how well the arrows worked. I would guess they were effective against chain mail, leather armor, and thinner (cheaper?) plate armor.

I was struck by how it resembled modern armor piercing sabots found in anti-tank artillery shells as in this photo:
GlobalSecurity.org - Reliable Security Information

Sabots are, like the arrows, solid, pointed projectiles. The materials (the best are tungsten or spent uranium) are new, but otherwise sabots are just very high velocity arrows. Modern military technology is a lot older than you think.