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."

[Sir Edward]

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.

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]

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.

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.

"All knights are men-at-arms, but not all men-at-arms are knights."

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.

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.

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.

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. 

[Thorsteinn]

And where do you feel the condottieri or huscarl's fit in?

[Sir Nate]

Housecarls?

[Ian]

And where do you feel the condottieri or huscarl's fit in?

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.

[Sir Wolf]

no huscarls had land

[SirNathanQ]

Ah, there goes my categorization. I thought they didn't. Is there any good source for learning about the huscarls? I'm sure there's some parallel we could find, with the right knowledge.

[Ian]

Even if we could draw a loose parallel, I question the usefulness.  It's convenient for us to classify things in neat packages, but Scandinavian Dark Age culture and Western European Medieval Culture are apples and oranges, and it may be best to leave them that way.  We may be trying to force a labeling that will ultimately lead to incorrect conclusions.

[SirNathanQ]

Probably. The question came up though, so I was looking for an answer. 

I suppose in that light, the best answer to Sean's question is that they don't!

[Ian]

My fear is once we label huscarls as knight analogs, people start to assume that other knightly characteristics are then true of huscarls... and that's where the improper labeling turns around to bite us in the behind.  It's certainly a fun thought experiment though!