Main > The Round Table
My confusion on Men at Arms, and Knights.
Thorsteinn:
And where do you feel the condottieri or huscarl's fit in?
Sir Nate:
Housecarls?
Ian:
--- Quote from: Thorsteinn on 2014-02-01, 22:00:21 ---And where do you feel the condottieri or huscarl's fit in?
--- End quote ---
Condotierri don't really confuse the issue, because among the condotierri there were acknowledged knights, and there were non-noble men-at-arms as well. Sir John Hawkwood for example was a knight, and he's one of the most famous condotierri. A lot of English knights during the lull in the war with France sold their services in the Free Companies to the Italian wars of the late 14th century. So, all condotierri are men-at-arms, some condotierri are knights.
Huscarls on the other hand, as house-hold retainers may or may not be analogous to a knight, since the concept of knighthood didn't really exist yet. They're definitely a man-at-arms. But I can't answer whether or not a huscarl is analogous to Medieval Knighthood. They'rekind of like 'knights' in service to a lord (the Jarl), but it was an entirely different culture, so it's hard to apply the same labels.
It's definitely an interesting question. What do you think Sean?
Sir Wolf:
jarls are earls
hmmmmm huscals had to have requirements to. like mail shirts for so much land owned or something. i would say they would be the closest thing to a knight if there was such a thing during the time frame
SirNathanQ:
Huscarls, I would compare to a lord's band of household knights. Equipped and trained as a knight, perhaps even with the social status, but still without lands, estates, castles, tenants, ect.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version