I'm going to state what I think I know about the "real" stuff that one might want to try to model. This is useful because it helps determine the model or if one really wants to leap into the morass at all.
My opinion comes from years of amature hoplology, both practical and theoretical. I am no expert, but if nothing else, I can instruct by being obviously wrong. This is not going to be organized.
First, there has always been a race between protection and weaponry.
Second, protection has often fallen somewhat short of what weaponry of a given era can do. Otherwise, there would be no need to learn defense--just rely upon armor (more on that later).
The major limit upon armor seems to have always been cost. The richest could afford armor that was effective against the majority of attacks at a given period of history (up to a point). But even then, armor could be defeated. The proof of this is that skill was never abandoned.
The effectiveness of plate has long been known. However, the expense of making plate armor made it prohibitive for much of human history. Mail is a good compromise, since it is very hard to cut, and well-made mail (riveted, not that "butted mail" one sees in SCA) can significantly slow down a piercing thrust weapon. However, the fundamental defense of the mail era was skill. This is because a good hauberk could still permit a man to be slain were he hit with a well-swung axe or sword or a well-placed spear. Instead, armor would be to protect against "almost kills"--blows that were not spot-on but could skitter off the armor since they weren't at a perfect angle. Thus, while a "true blow" could still kill a man in full Norman get-up, his armor would protect him against attacks that would slay an unarmored man outright. Likewise, while leather wouldn't save a man from some blows that a man in mail could survive, at least they could reduce the effect of the attack. In this era, the massive weapons were the two-handed bearded axe of the Saxon Huscarle and the lance of the Norman knight. A good hit from either would finish a man in the best armor of the day. A longbow was a threat to both, but archers were lightly-protected, so you would want to ride them down. In the hurley-burley of melee, skill with your horse, your body, and your weapons (a shield is a weapon) is what would save your life.
In the transitional era, plate gradually replaced mail and weapons got heavier. The canted saddle permitted lancers to hit even harder (not stirrups--M. Richard Alvarez of Texas has researched this question hands-on very extensively--stirrups permit a man to steer the horse while both hands were busy. The saddle canting is what permits a solid shock attack.). Swords got larger and eventually went to two-handed use. Ultimately, we got to the ascendancy of full plate in the 15th century, which could still be penetrated by pike, lance, and the new devil-weapon (firearms).
By the era of the man-in-a-can, no single-handed weapon could be relied upon to actually penetrate armor. Even two-handed swords were considered inadequate to the task. German swordmasters of the 15th century taught that the cut was used against lightly-armored enemies. Against a man in proper armor, choke up on the weapon and use it like a spear, seeking the weaker armor at the joints--do not try to penetrate the plates, it was not considered practical. This was the era of the great honking pole-arm, full of spiky bits and enormous blades that were swung with great momentum (and used with great skill). Even so, in this era, skill was still considered the sovereign defense. Relying on your armor was not considered safe, and the full-armor era masters taught dagger techniques, since if an armpit or collar would admit a spear, it would admit a ballocks knife. Firearms were so powerful that they were greatly despised by the knightly class, since they could actually penetrate this armor and didn't require generations of training to use. In 1524, the very last chevalier sans peur et sans reproche, Pierre Terrail, Seigneur de Bayard, was slain by just such a bullet. During his life he executed every gunner he ever captured, on the spot. The poet Lodovico Ariosto summed up the power of the firearm unintentionally in his Orlando Furiouso:
By "bad man", Ariosto meant "commoner". "Good man" meant "nobleman who has devoted his life to the skill of arms".
My opinion comes from years of amature hoplology, both practical and theoretical. I am no expert, but if nothing else, I can instruct by being obviously wrong. This is not going to be organized.
First, there has always been a race between protection and weaponry.
Second, protection has often fallen somewhat short of what weaponry of a given era can do. Otherwise, there would be no need to learn defense--just rely upon armor (more on that later).
The major limit upon armor seems to have always been cost. The richest could afford armor that was effective against the majority of attacks at a given period of history (up to a point). But even then, armor could be defeated. The proof of this is that skill was never abandoned.
The effectiveness of plate has long been known. However, the expense of making plate armor made it prohibitive for much of human history. Mail is a good compromise, since it is very hard to cut, and well-made mail (riveted, not that "butted mail" one sees in SCA) can significantly slow down a piercing thrust weapon. However, the fundamental defense of the mail era was skill. This is because a good hauberk could still permit a man to be slain were he hit with a well-swung axe or sword or a well-placed spear. Instead, armor would be to protect against "almost kills"--blows that were not spot-on but could skitter off the armor since they weren't at a perfect angle. Thus, while a "true blow" could still kill a man in full Norman get-up, his armor would protect him against attacks that would slay an unarmored man outright. Likewise, while leather wouldn't save a man from some blows that a man in mail could survive, at least they could reduce the effect of the attack. In this era, the massive weapons were the two-handed bearded axe of the Saxon Huscarle and the lance of the Norman knight. A good hit from either would finish a man in the best armor of the day. A longbow was a threat to both, but archers were lightly-protected, so you would want to ride them down. In the hurley-burley of melee, skill with your horse, your body, and your weapons (a shield is a weapon) is what would save your life.
In the transitional era, plate gradually replaced mail and weapons got heavier. The canted saddle permitted lancers to hit even harder (not stirrups--M. Richard Alvarez of Texas has researched this question hands-on very extensively--stirrups permit a man to steer the horse while both hands were busy. The saddle canting is what permits a solid shock attack.). Swords got larger and eventually went to two-handed use. Ultimately, we got to the ascendancy of full plate in the 15th century, which could still be penetrated by pike, lance, and the new devil-weapon (firearms).
By the era of the man-in-a-can, no single-handed weapon could be relied upon to actually penetrate armor. Even two-handed swords were considered inadequate to the task. German swordmasters of the 15th century taught that the cut was used against lightly-armored enemies. Against a man in proper armor, choke up on the weapon and use it like a spear, seeking the weaker armor at the joints--do not try to penetrate the plates, it was not considered practical. This was the era of the great honking pole-arm, full of spiky bits and enormous blades that were swung with great momentum (and used with great skill). Even so, in this era, skill was still considered the sovereign defense. Relying on your armor was not considered safe, and the full-armor era masters taught dagger techniques, since if an armpit or collar would admit a spear, it would admit a ballocks knife. Firearms were so powerful that they were greatly despised by the knightly class, since they could actually penetrate this armor and didn't require generations of training to use. In 1524, the very last chevalier sans peur et sans reproche, Pierre Terrail, Seigneur de Bayard, was slain by just such a bullet. During his life he executed every gunner he ever captured, on the spot. The poet Lodovico Ariosto summed up the power of the firearm unintentionally in his Orlando Furiouso:
.
By "bad man", Ariosto meant "commoner". "Good man" meant "nobleman who has devoted his life to the skill of arms".
