I love armor, I think it's beautiful and the concept of improving a human's durability is very interesting to me. However, I've never heard of any historical sources or reenactment enthusiasts discuss how effective armor actually has been through the ages. Generally, it's limited to how Longbows can pierce plate, and guns trumped all.
If you were facing a roman in either chainmail or breastplate, would you see his chest as impenetrable and need to direct all attacks at head/arms/legs? (Disregarding the shield in this example)
What about at a European Man-at-arms with a mix of leather and metal armor? A proper knight with some type of Plate?
How effective were armors in Melee, compared to ranged? Another sentiment I've noticed is that armor is occasionally mentioned blocking against ranged attacks, but less so in close combat. Shields are mentioned in both, even more frequently though.
Plus, it seems like having a shield was pretty much the best option since these seem to be used by almost every culture in some way and just about any levyman would try to get a basic shield.
Follow-up question: Are there any sources of fencing manuals or the like that actually emphasize USING your armor in a fight? IE; Utilize a shoulder guard to deflect a blow while you swing opposite the enemies weapon?
Plus, it seems like having a shield was pretty much the best option since these seem to be used by almost every culture in some way and just about any levyman would try to get a basic shield.
Shields are great, but I think you are exaggerating a little here. Even if you are fighting in a large shield wall, it is perfectly possible to be severely injured. For example, I recently went to a museum (the Jorvik Viking Centre in York, if you're interested) which had a skeleton that appears to have fought and died in battle while using a shield. The most obvious impact of this shield is that he has no battle injuries on his left arm and ribs: however, he's got a big axe chip in his left thigh, multiple spear wounds in his pelvis, lots of cuts into his right side ribs, a decent nick to the left side of his skull, and finally an 'execution wound' severing his spine at the neck.
Other bits of evidence from the bones seems to suggest that he was a strong man in the prime of his life and slightly taller than average. But having a shield didn't stop him from receiving multiple fatal wounds in a very short space of time before being executed. By contrast, armour to prevent whichever was the first wound (the thigh cut, perhaps) could have given him a chance to get back in line. Perhaps.
Next to the skeleton is a bunch of skulls showing battle wounds for those not wearing helmets. They are horrific: in one, for example, a sword path is clearly traced going straight through the top of the skull in a way that's impossible to imagine for someone wearing a metal cap.
((While this is less in my area of experience, it's also worth noting that shields increasingly become abandoned in high medieval Europe even while gunpowder weapons are pretty rubbish. You start seeing things like zweihanders and pikemen and knights with long hammers that don't really bother with shields to the same extent. That is, however, a very general and unsourced statement, so disregard as you see fit.))