@Kentucky 『 HEIGUI 』 James You are asking to much from a man that thinks the half of 19 is 2. And that 2 shillings that is roughly 1 or 2
weeks wages for a low rank archer of the time was the equivalent of half of a Ferrari car. Not to mention the pay in the link is "daily" not monthly.
The Middle ages sure were great if that was real
Here instead the pay for soldiers was even lower but as stated in both links: there was an "extra pay"compensation was given in form of loot. thus the relatively low amount of pay in comparison to a
civil worker.
Not to mention information on the subject is very limited, as it's records of battles. And depending on the historian you can find basically anything you want to hold your theories, that's why i would much rather use common sense and logic.
Non of this leads me to believe that it was that hard to save up enough to buy a cheap shield and a cheap sword, considering kids started working or helping the family full time at around the age of 7 and could be drafted at the age of 14 or 16.
Then if we even look at the English doctrine we know all men between age X and Y had to train at least once a week, generally in bow.
The only one that couldn't save the money were the ones with no jobs, sick or dead family members.
The man also seems to not understand that the kingdoms economies also made of war a great deal and shops and merchants were basically everywhere and there was an industry that for the time could be compared to not be lesser than the later eras.
He also forgets about inheriting items, gifts from friends and family that returned from war, passing the objects (in not great conditions but still better than nothing) down the line.
Or accounts of Lords buying gear for their own soldiers at lower cost since, generally speaking when you buy in bulk you pay less, or even simply other soldiers that sold looted items for food or less or just at below market price.
Not to mention the advantage of gearing your people better if you could, which the most ambitious and competitive lords sure did, for most, war was nothing but real life chess with a prize (land or simple glory) in the end.
And the fact that if you were a successful commander or captain there was a lot to be gained.
The last thing an imposing and rich commander wants to say is that he lost a fight because he had too many people without a board. You can imagine the personal ridicule.
For manufacturing there are plenty of ways to get resources, villagers weren't morons with no idea of what they were doing. Most of them were more resourceful than most of the people today.
Not to mention that unlike today society that is aimed at the use of "specialized" workers the civilians in the middle ages, the ones in rural villages especially, had to do a large variety of jobs in the same week. Just looking at the lesser developed countries is enough to understand that was and still is a reality.
Anyway a well researched
video was made on this very subject and it explains well how our friend is massively overestimating the price and underappreciating the entire industry of the time
And
glue was obtained in a bunch of different ways than just by slaughtering farm animals like: fish, vegetables, eggs,
cheese, milk, plants and hunting were all ways to get glue, let alone that the amount of glue you can get from a single dead animal is plenty, (even humans could make good glue since they contain collagen as well).
The Romans for example used fish glue to bond their shields. England, like Italy or France or Spain was surrounded by the sea. Fish would have been a fairly common resource.
Metal could be smelted from the old helmets, armors and weapons of dead soldiers, nails could be made out of
wood, yeah, you would be surprised of how good wood nails can be.
They were used to keep ships together just to have an idea of how strong ,when used well, they could be and how resourceful human engineers were for the time. Sure they had the downside of rotting but for a 60 days to even an year campaign it should be no problem with some maintenance.
Another thing to keep in mind is that shields of the same type and color could be given out to the soldiers to avoid "friendly fire" scenarios.
But same colors of uniforms and other equipment had a greater role later down the history line than the time Bannerlord should take place in. Altough it shouldn't be discounted, as reports of friendly fire and "mistakes" exist from at least the Romans.
There is a lack of complexity in the arguments which is fine, as long as the evidence leads them to realize that they are being stubborn and not considering the wide range of possibilities on most points, or well, there isn't much that can be done.
Just wanted to link some more evidence and give out some more reasoning