You're a retard.
The English archers in particular were FUCKING INFAMOUS for being unusually heavily armed and armored for archers, serving as dual purpose soldier,s willing, eager, and armed to engage in close combat. Given the chance, they'd be as heavily armored as the men at arms.
>Usually if heavy armor beats light its due to tactics/ terrain
No, it usually wins because it's flat out fucking better.
>I wont bother citing examples of light ranged infantry running circles around heavy infantry because Im sure you know of them already.
No, you're not citing them because you're ignorant and can't.
These examples are fucking rare, and UNIVERSALLY involve fucking awful terrain, usually of the sort that people aren't usually found fighting over at all.
The ONE example that doesn't involve terrain seriously favoring the light troops, involves a much, much smaller unit of spartans acting like retards in the face of overwhelming numbers.
And this occurred in an era where "light" troops were rapidly getting heavier, and would continue to do so.
>Point being that in situations where heavy armor is at an advantage the advantage is due to tactics and terrain rather than the fact that theyre wearing heavier armor.
THEN WHY ARE THEY WEARING ARMOR. ARMOR IS EXPENSIVE. ARMOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO FIGHT IN CLOSE ORDER OR USE SHOCK TACTICS.
He's going to cite an example where thousands of greek skirmishers-with hoplite support-managed to capture a hoplite force that outnumbered 27.7 to 1.
I imagine this'll be followed up with the one example of peltasts breaking a phalanx-again, badly outnumbered-and then a rapid time jump of centuries to the ONE battle where light infantry beat the Romans at teutoburg. He will of course ignore the psychology involved, the betrayal of the cavalry, or the terrain favoring the Germans. Also the total destruction of the tribes in question after.