are you stupid, or trying to be? leather armour is a widely used peace of armour in medieval times. it was cheap and offered protection. many used it as the only protection during a fight and only nobles or other rich people wore mail and plate.

also the story is kinda bad yeah I agree with that.

1: Although there is evidence that leather armor was used, said evideces are rare which in itself is very strong indicative that leather armor was most definetely not widely used. 2: And here is my buggest pet peave. Why on earth would you believe leather armor is cheap?! Leather is expensive today and it were even more so back in the day. Moreover, fabric armor is not only objectively better but also way cheaper to produce. 3: Most of the misconceptions regarding leather armor comes from the more common use of leather in armor which is in brigandine armor (which could use fabric or leather as a base upont which metal plates would be studed upon in a layered manner). This also where the misconception of Studded leather armor comes from. 4: I most definetely am not trying to be stupid nor do I think that I am but one can hardly be the judge of himself in that matter. Be that as ir may, i fail to see in what way would that matter in this argument.

alright so I said "only protection" that was a mistake, but yes it was widely used from Egypt to France. check the Wikipedia page for boiled leather it quite literally states "It was used for some armour, being both much cheaper and much lighter than plate armour" this is from the boiled leather wiki. it wasn't as commonly used as I wrongly assumed, but it was cheap and widely used.

most if not all other types of armor were cheaper than plate. Still, i get your point.