Main > The Round Table
My confusion on Men at Arms, and Knights.
Sir Nate:
I have been recently been reading, and read of Foot soldiers wearing only gambesons and steel caps. Of course the wealthier foot soldiers may have a hauberk.
But what I have always been confused about is The difference of men at arms and Knights.
It seems in all Medieval Pictures men at arms are equipped equally to the knights.
Is the difference between Men at arms and knights, not By armor but by social class?
But if it is social class, how did the men at arms ever afford such armor?
but of course the knight could usually be distinguished by there heraldry, but that is irrelevant
Ian:
The term 'Man-at-arms' includes any equipped soldier. A knight is a man-at-arms, a non-noble footsoldier is also a man-at-arms. Man-at-arms is an all-inclusive term.
A knight is generally of the nobility. A non-noble man-at-arms, if he is wealthy, can be equipped very comparably to a knight if he can afford it. There was no rule saying that 'only the nobility could have a full harness.' The reason mostly knights have a full harness is because they could afford to buy one. So the differences are in social class and wealth, but remember that 'man-at-arms' includes everyone equipped for melee combat, including the noble knights.
Sir Douglas:
"All knights are men-at-arms, but not all men-at-arms are knights." 8)
Sir Edward:
--- Quote from: Ian on 2014-02-01, 00:55:18 ---A knight is generally of the nobility. A non-noble man-at-arms, if he is wealthy, can be equipped very comparably to a knight if he can afford it. There was no rule saying that 'only the nobility could have a full harness.' The reason mostly knights have a full harness is because they could afford to buy one. So the differences are in social class and wealth, but remember that 'man-at-arms' includes everyone equipped for melee combat, including the noble knights.
--- End quote ---
This also depends a lot on which century you're talking about. Very early on, the term "knight" just meant a man-at-arms who could also afford a horse. Later, "knight" became a formal title, but still strictly referred to a type of warrior. By the 16th century, it had almost entirely become a title of lower nobility, and had little to do with combat anymore.
During the 14th century, which is very popular here on the forum, it was in that transitional stage. It was somewhat nobility-like, but also being a wealthy warrior.
However throughout all of this, "man at arms" refers generically to someone who is skilled and equipped to fight.
Sir Nate:
--- Quote from: Ian on 2014-02-01, 00:55:18 ---The term 'Man-at-arms' includes any equipped soldier. A knight is a man-at-arms, a non-noble footsoldier is also a man-at-arms. Man-at-arms is an all-inclusive term.
A knight is generally of the nobility. A non-noble man-at-arms, if he is wealthy, can be equipped very comparably to a knight if he can afford it. There was no rule saying that 'only the nobility could have a full harness.' The reason mostly knights have a full harness is because they could afford to buy one. So the differences are in social class and wealth, but remember that 'man-at-arms' includes everyone equipped for melee combat, including the noble knights.
--- End quote ---
Ah that makes sense, Usually books or some movies don't seem to go in that much depth of the difference, or they make it seem like the men at arms would have been soldiers that were closer to the knights. It least what I have read, or seen. But I never knew all combatants were men at arms.
--- Quote from: DouglasTheYounger on 2014-02-01, 01:07:17 ---"All knights are men-at-arms, but not all men-at-arms are knights." 8)
--- End quote ---
That's a good way to put it. I knew not all men at arms were knights, I had thought that maybe they were friends of the knight and fought closure to him. Even possibly he bought there equipment. But now I see even foot soldiers were as well.
--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2014-02-01, 02:53:38 ---
--- Quote from: Ian on 2014-02-01, 00:55:18 ---A knight is generally of the nobility. A non-noble man-at-arms, if he is wealthy, can be equipped very comparably to a knight if he can afford it. There was no rule saying that 'only the nobility could have a full harness.' The reason mostly knights have a full harness is because they could afford to buy one. So the differences are in social class and wealth, but remember that 'man-at-arms' includes everyone equipped for melee combat, including the noble knights.
--- End quote ---
This also depends a lot on which century you're talking about. Very early on, the term "knight" just meant a man-at-arms who could also afford a horse. Later, "knight" became a formal title, but still strictly referred to a type of warrior. By the 16th century, it had almost entirely become a title of lower nobility, and had little to do with combat anymore.
During the 14th century, which is very popular here on the forum, it was in that transitional stage. It was somewhat nobility-like, but also being a wealthy warrior.
However throughout all of this, "man at arms" refers generically to someone who is skilled and equipped to fight.
--- End quote ---
I always forget to mention what century. I guess It would be the 12th and 13th century's, or even more
specifically the crusades. Were alot of "Men at arms" were well equipped. Or so it seems.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version