ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Round Table => Topic started by: Sir Nate on 2014-02-01, 00:49:05
-
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
-
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.
-
"All knights are men-at-arms, but not all men-at-arms are knights." 8)
-
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.
-
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." 8)
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.
-
And where do you feel the condottieri or huscarl's fit in?
-
Housecarls?
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
no huscarls had land
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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!
-
but what about my pirate ninja categories? where do they fall in Ian?
-
but what about my pirate ninja categories? where do they fall in Ian?
Knights, definitely knights.
-
but what about my pirate ninja categories? where do they fall in Ian?
Knights, definitely knights.
Ninja pirates, are Ninjas, Just because they choose to be a pirate, doesn't mean there a new breed of people.
Same goes for Futuristic Samurai, zombie robots, alien robots, Ninja robots, etc.
Scratch zombie robots.
-
but what about my pirate ninja categories? where do they fall in Ian?
Knights, definitely knights.
Aaaaaarrrr, m'lord, they will never see me coming, with my cutlass katana, and heater shield.
-
but what about my pirate ninja categories? where do they fall in Ian?
Knights, definitely knights.
Ninja pirates, are Ninjas, Just because they choose to be a pirate, doesn't mean there a new breed of people.
Same goes for Futuristic Samurai, zombie robots, alien robots, Ninja robots, etc.
Scratch zombie robots.
Where does a football playing king in space with a mustache fall under then?
-
but what about my pirate ninja categories? where do they fall in Ian?
Knights, definitely knights.
Aaaaaarrrr, m'lord, they will never see me coming, with my cutlass katana, and heater shield.
Alas they could still *smell* you…lest you forget not to bathe! ;)
Where does a football playing king in space with a mustache fall under then?
Beckham Richard Buzz Burgundy? :-\
-
but what about my pirate ninja categories? where do they fall in Ian?
Knights, definitely knights.
Aaaaaarrrr, m'lord, they will never see me coming, with my cutlass katana, and heater shield.
Alas they could still *smell* you…lest you forget not to bathe! ;)
Where does a football playing king in space with a mustache fall under then?
Beckham Richard Buzz Burgundy? :-\
Lets not forget Canadian Viking ventriloquist moose.
"Let's pillage the village A'e"
-
pigsssssssss innnnnnnnn sssppppppppppppaaaaaacccceeeeeeeeee
-
Man-at-arms is a blanket term that covers approximately all of the things.
-
pigsssssssss innnnnnnnn sssppppppppppppaaaaaacccceeeeeeeeee
Hahaa, OHHH the memories that brings back.
-
pigsssssssss innnnnnnnn sssppppppppppppaaaaaacccceeeeeeeeee
Hahaa, OHHH the memories that brings back.
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.
-
Ok two fictional ones then:
The Doctor.
B5 Rangers.
-
Ok two fictional ones then:
The Doctor.
B5 Rangers.
Instead of that what are your thoughts on huscarls and condotierri. You posted the question, I'm curious what you think.
-
Ok two fictional ones then:
The Doctor.
B5 Rangers.
Instead of that what are your thoughts on huscarls and condotierri. You posted the question, I'm curious what you think.
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.
-
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.
-
Maybe a knight is considered a man at arms?
-
Maybe a knight is considered a man at arms?
Yes Sir Aiden, all knights are considered men-at-arms.
-
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.
I thought we were going for general blanket statements? Condottieri would likely be men at arms, but not likely to be knights. I'm sure there were some who were knights.
-
I'll just quote myself from the first page since that seems to have been ignored ;) :
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.
-
I'll just quote myself from the first page since that seems to have been ignored ;) :
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.
Ah, indeed, sorry about that, I missed it. Conversation went to space-ninjas and robots, and I glossed over it after that. :o
-
Maybe a knight is considered a man at arms?
Yes Sir Aiden, all knights are considered men-at-arms.
:) im so proud of myself.
-
Back in the day, Terry Gilliam used to do series on the "History" channel called Medieval Lives. The "Knight" episode featured John Hawkwood. Not a nice guy! You can find it pretty easily on YouTube.
ADDED: Check out "1066" by David Howart for some good background on Huscarls.
-
Maybe a knight is considered a man at arms?
Yes Sir Aiden, all knights are considered men-at-arms.
Just like all pages are considered "Squire lackeys" or "boys-with-arms" (to carry all my tourney gear around). ;D
-
their italian... of course there are no real knights hahaha jk jk
-
Back in the day, Terry Gilliam used to do series on the "History" channel called Medieval Lives. The "Knight" episode featured John Hawkwood. Not a nice guy! You can find it pretty easily on YouTube.
ADDED: Check out "1066" by David Howart for some good background on Huscarls.
Ah! I have 7 or 8 episodes of that but haven't seen it yet. I think I need to do so. Thanks!
-
Back in the day, Terry Gilliam used to do series on the "History" channel called Medieval Lives. The "Knight" episode featured John Hawkwood. Not a nice guy! You can find it pretty easily on YouTube.
ADDED: Check out "1066" by David Howart for some good background on Huscarls.
Ah! I have 7 or 8 episodes of that but haven't seen it yet. I think I need to do so. Thanks!
Isn't terry Gilliam The animator for Monty python?
I know terry jones did a show like that.
-
Isn't terry Gilliam The animator for Monty python?
I know terry jones did a show like that.
Yep, that's right.
Terry Jones did some sort of history show, and the episode he did on knights was an attempt to debunk the romanticized notion of a "knight in shining armor", but he went too far in the other direction. There were several flaws in his arguments, including somewhat misconstruing a quote from the Chretien de Troyes' version of the Lancelot story. But he was certainly correct that there were some downright awful knights in history.
-
Isn't terry Gilliam The animator for Monty python?
I know terry jones did a show like that.
Yep, that's right.
Terry Jones did some sort of history show, and the episode he did on knights was an attempt to debunk the romanticized notion of a "knight in shining armor", but he went too far in the other direction. There were several flaws in his arguments, including somewhat misconstruing a quote from the Chretien de Troyes' version of the Lancelot story. But he was certainly correct that there were some downright awful knights in history.
Ya, he was good as that old man in holy grail.
In the show many of his animations were really bizarre. I'm sure he may have been.
Ya I watched terry jones do a bit on gladiators and it was kinda boring.
Felt more like I was watching terry jones than learn anything.
They are all so old now.
(John Cleese is doing a voice in elder scrolls online)
-
Terry Jones' Medieval Lives is what it's called. He also wrote a companion book to it. It's been a while since I watched it, but if I remember correctly, it's like just about anything else concerning history: there's a lot of good information there, but you can't just automatically accept everything at face value. You have to sort of look at it with a discerning eye.
-
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?
Sorry for the lateness...
Well you do have to define a Knight and if there are such things as Knight-analogue's. I could see a Huscarl as a Knight-analogue as they were often well off, well equipped, & well trained.
How would you see the Varangian Guard for the first 200 or so years?