Main > The Round Table
My confusion on Men at Arms, and Knights.
Sir Nate:
--- Quote from: Sir Aiden on 2014-02-03, 20:35:31 ---
--- Quote from: Sir Wolf on 2014-02-03, 17:26:28 ---pigsssssssss innnnnnnnn sssppppppppppppaaaaaacccceeeeeeeeee
--- End quote ---
Hahaa, OHHH the memories that brings back.
--- End quote ---
Remember the Star Wars one?
Alright so men at arms are anyone that bears arms.
Except the French. They are just, At arms
There is no men in French.
Thorsteinn:
Ok two fictional ones then:
The Doctor.
B5 Rangers.
Ian:
--- Quote from: Thorsteinn on 2014-02-03, 23:13:55 ---Ok two fictional ones then:
The Doctor.
B5 Rangers.
--- End quote ---
Instead of that what are your thoughts on huscarls and condotierri. You posted the question, I'm curious what you think.
Sir James A:
--- Quote from: Ian on 2014-02-03, 23:42:34 ---
--- Quote from: Thorsteinn on 2014-02-03, 23:13:55 ---Ok two fictional ones then:
The Doctor.
B5 Rangers.
--- End quote ---
Instead of that what are your thoughts on huscarls and condotierri. You posted the question, I'm curious what you think.
--- End quote ---
Not directly addressing me, but since Condotierri fall in one of my armor styles of interest - I'd classify them as Men At Arms. They were typically mercenaries / hired hands. They focused on either flat out battlefield combat (as leaders), or political battles. It's not a subject I've read much about, but nothing chivalrous comes to mind.
Huscarls, I'm curious about. The fictional stuff, not so much.
Ian:
So was Sir John Hawkwood not a knight? You kind of jumped on the one category (condottierri) where we undoubtedly know there were knights being contracted by the Italian city-states.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version