Leather also creaks and squeaks. Leather thick and tough enough to actually be armour would not be my first choice for sneaking around in. A good linen jack though...
The commentariat seem to think these are "jupons" covering early plate armour, although the guy with all the armour and a bow gives pause for thought. Do we know what scene is being depicted? You can get some anachronistic oddities if an illustrator is using contemporary fashions in a Biblical scene.
The francs-archers were France's attempt to copy English archers, by whom it had often been invaded, having run out of Scottish mercenary archers to do the job for them. I imagine they were able to see what the state-of-the-art was in terms of protective gear for the common soldiery. Their English oppo's were mostly self supplied and highly in demand.If we're talking about the same source, then the 30 layers of linen comes from the equipment mandated for the French militia archers. Who didn't have to pay for their own equipment, it had to be provided by their communities. And let's just say that was only one reason why they generally were despised. Not the most effective and famous bunch of soldiers ever to walk the earth.
During the ECW, a buff coat with 3 pair of detachable sleeves and gold and silver decoration cost 2 pounds, 14 shillings, and sixpence; a plainer one without the fanciest set of sleeves (but retaining two pair of detachable sleeves) could probably be had for 1/17/6. Harquebusier armor (breastplate, backplate, and helmet) cost 1/10/-, pikeman's armor cost 1/2/-, a pair of flintlock pistols were 3 pounds, a dragoon's horse was 4 pounds and a cuirassier's 7/10/-, while the cuirassier's armor ran to 4/10/-. So buff coats were pricey, but not ludicrously so.Cost is another issue that seems to get overlooked in the RPGs (though that happens all the time anyway). Prior to industrialized agriculture, leather was not at all cheap and was in demand for lots of things. I remember hearing that buff coats of the 17th century cost a ton. Whereas linen was quite common and produced all over Europe and the near east.
Hard to say. Each non-D&D uses its' own method, but with D&D, the general trend was that -- during the era where D&D was trying to capture a wargame's feel -- heavier armor was pretty much just-plain-better (if you could wing it). Armor was mostly a matter of cost and what you could carry (and what each class was allowed). Thieves were a notable exception, but it wasn't movement... they literally couldn't use heavier armor (and with the advent of AD&D, got some penalties on their thieving roles for progressively heavier armors within their range). Overall I think it emulated the idea that lighter armor was what less wealthy, possibly more expendable troops wore and your goal was to get to the point of being able to afford and carry as full a plate as a version of the game had.I don't want to sound too Dan Howard, but "light" armour is a bit of a weird concept in itself. It descends to RPGs from their roots in ancients wargaming, where soldiers en masse get classified as light, medium or heavy (and perhaps extra heavy, super heavy) formations and given varying move rates and protection against casualties to match. This arrives in D&D as leather armour giving a 12" move rate and chainmail(*) a 9" move rate. Obviously a thief needs his high move rate amiright?
Brigandine in particular I think D&D and the like gets just plain wrong. In reality, it is something you might wear over padded and chain, not as a replacement, and it certainly was a form of heavy armor. Same with cuir bouilli leather. These are non-light armor pushed into the light armor role because that's what gamers want to have.A pair of brigandines would certainly weight more than a back and breast, because overlapping is wasteful - is brigandine a "lighter" armour than steel plate?