Question on the customs of war: Foot soldiers and knights.

[Aiden of Oreland]

So for awhile I have been pondering on the question of the rules of when a foot soldier encounters a knight on the battlefield. I know the general rules of combat for when a knight faces another knight. He would generally try to disarm and defeat, but not kill, his other knight. But has the permission to slay a man-at-arms of a lower status. What are the rules for the the foot soldier? Is he expected to disarm the knight, or to slay him? Or is there no rules at all (probably not the case though) when you are a simple soldier or man-at-arms?

[Thorsteinn]

And we're assuming no Crecy, Agincourt, or Golden Spurs like behavior here?

[Aiden of Oreland]

Nope, I'm talking about when the age of chivalry is not yet "dead"

[Sir James A]

Knights could kill other knights. No rules against it. Knights could be ransomed, so they were often worth more alive than dead. Ransom didn't have to be paid, but it was possible, of course.

No rules of engagement for foot soldiers vs knights. It may have been frowned upon, but certainly not illegal or anything like that.

King Richard III died on the battle field. He was on his horse when his horse was stuck in swampy ground, and was assaulted by a group. I vaguely recall hearing that it was blows struck by polearms, which makes sense since he was still on his horse. He was struck in the head repeatedly. He's been in the news recently and his skeleton confirmed 8 separate blows to the head. Chances are some, or all, of those blows came from common man-at-arms / halberdiers / etc.

[Aiden of Oreland]

Could a foot soldier ransom a knight? Also when you say frowned upon, do you mean the engagement itself, or the action of a foot soldier striking and defeating a knight.

[Sir William]

A foot soldier could claim ransom on a knight- but if said knight were of a high enough rank, the king (if present) could claim the ransom for himself.