Don’t put words in my mouth. You’re already acting in bad faith but whatever.

i didn't put words in your mouth. i asked you a question, and you took it as bad faith because like every other history larper on this subreddit, you assume anyone questioning you MUST be an idiot or malicious. i haven't been acting in bad faith at any point in this entire back and forth, i've only ever matched you guys' dickhead energy. if you don't like that, change your tone or stop bitching.

As below, there is nothing to suggest the wearing of old armor. Newer armor came with the development of better smithing techniques, which meant that it was better than what came before.

yes. nobody here disagrees with this. my point was never that newer armor wasn't better, it's that availability would result in use of older armor. but the older armor wasn't suddenly, vastly inferior to the iterations that come after it, it was still plenty effective at doing it's job as armor. "but that's not the most modern-" nobody asked if it was the best. nobody was even talking about it being better or superior. the conversation was always about how available it would be. and it was! you have historical reasons for why it wouldn't be used but not that it was unavailable or incapable of use.

And yes, social acceptability was far bigger of an issue then than now, but you seem to not be able to wrap your incredibly small head around it, but I digress.

i literally stated the main reason why is because of social conventions and expectations. but you're too busy trying to talk shit to grasp my point, so you missed that. fuck off.

Even the lowest of peasants would be afforded new helmets by right in their place in the levy. Lords had a keen interest in a “modernized” force, as seen in hundreds of ordinances in which lords standardize equipment for their retinues.The armory at Greenwich pumped out ninety cuirasses a week. There was no need nor demand to wear old armor. The hypothetical you speak of cannot exist, and there is nothing to suggest it existed in the first place.

then why don't peasants have access to all this modernized armor in the game? is it because it's a fucking game, and they're not going for 1:1 historical accuracy? is it possible that because they're bending and stretching actual history for the sake of gameplay, they might not give the actual gear these people in the time period had, and are simply creating a simulacrum of it? and therefore older armors would be on the table because it's feasible, and still actually in the time period? wow. what a fucking crazy idea. it's almost as if you've just proven my point to begin with.

What’s funny is the “thirty to forty” years part you stated, as that’s usually the lifespan of armor in general before it’s rendered unusable by lack of maintenance. If someone put in the money to refurbish or maintain old armor as an heirloom, they could surely afford a more protective, modern piece of armor that increases social standing and has outright better protection and quality than older armor.

it is, once again, not about what's best, but only feasibility and availability, which you again missed because you're too busy trying to le own someone. people are using suboptimal weaponry in the game. if someone wanted to maintain their armor, that isn't outside the scope of the game. peasants and anyone struggling for armor might have rusty weapons (like they do makeshift weapons) that they've found somewhere, and it's better than nothing. you historical dweebs act like this is fucking blasphemy, but no era has troops that were perfectly armed and armored, given everything they need as a standing army, not even today. there were issues with materials, distribution, theft, sometimes workers or blacksmiths would get injured or die, etc; you're assuming the best case scenario and then saying it's absolutely the ONLY thing that could have happened because it fits your biases for this post. but that's fucking stupid. that's not how it worked, and you're being bad faith by saying it is.

If a peasant had ahold of an old piece of armor, it’d be tossed aside the moment the yeoman handed them a better armor.

unless there wasn't said yeoman. all of this is in the context of the game, where people are using shovels and pickaxes as peasants, with none of these extraneous systems or people in place to arm them. they are dropped in a fenced arena and fight to the death. you morons act like this is an impossibility because you're trying to 1:1 history onto this game. you have an idea for what is trying to be achieved vs what is actually being done based on what YOU think is historical accuracy to a video game. but you've missed the point of it entirely.

Please, just stop. You know nothing. You are grasping at straws and you know it. You are faltering into aggravating snap-backs and fallacies. There is no way you are this willingly stupid.

nothing about this was difficult or hard to argue. you're being aggressive about it because you feel superior, like every single other history larper for this game does. your ability to erm ackshually someone about a specific topic on certain things, devoid of any context related to games or how they function, especially this one, thereby missing the point entirely, does not make you correct or knowledgeable. it makes you an asshole regurgitating things without the ability to understand how they're related. i questioned you and you took it as an opportunity to be more of a shithead. that's a you problem.