Main > The Armoury

Scabbard for an Albion Poitiers for wear with a Plaque Belt

<< < (6/10) > >>

Ian:

--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2014-10-03, 14:00:49 ---
We also have to remember to look at it within the context of the specific period as well. The gold and jewels and finery all pertain to a 14th century knight, but if you go back to the 11th century, the bar was probably a little lower.

--- End quote ---

Why?  Because it was 300 years earlier?  It may very well be true, but I'm just curious what you're basing that on.

Sir Brian:

--- Quote from: Ian on 2014-10-03, 14:31:24 ---
--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2014-10-03, 14:00:49 ---
We also have to remember to look at it within the context of the specific period as well. The gold and jewels and finery all pertain to a 14th century knight, but if you go back to the 11th century, the bar was probably a little lower.

--- End quote ---

Why?  Because it was 300 years earlier?  It may very well be true, but I'm just curious what you're basing that on.
--- End quote ---

I agree with Sir Edward’s perspective that in the earlier medieval periods the bestowing of knighthood was far less financially demanding. The below excerpt from ‘The Medieval Soldier’ by Vesey Norman, page 138 readily substantiates this.

By 1224 the shortage of actual knights was so great that all holders of knight’s fees were ordered to be knighted before Easter of 1225. This would almost certainly entail them being actually equipped as a knight, as did a similar order of 1234. This order was repeated at intervals throughout this century, very often immediately before an important campaign, usually on pain of distraint upon their property. This was not merely a method of raising money, as is shown by the fact in 1242 it was specifically stated that the fine was to be repaid to anyone who actually served in the army. By the end of Henry’s reign, apparently about four-fifths of those liable to do so had become knights.[sic]

It is also prudent to remember that many minor nobles had a multitude of sons where only the eldest would likely inherit the holdings of the father – i.e. the adage of ‘A heir, a spare and one for the church’. All those ‘extra’ brood were left with the choice of serving God or finding employment as a knight in the service of a more wealthy noble. Thus was the humble beginnings of our Order’s namesake. ;)

Ian:
Sir Brian, that excerpt expresses that knights were in short supply.  It doesn't really express the wealth requirement of a knight other than mentioning being 'equipped as' one.  And they were probably drawing from the gentry, not the commoners.  Even William Marshal was the son of a minor nobleman, so let's not pretend he wasn't already well off.

Sir Patrick:
This was discussed on one of the "History of England" podcasts. The knight of 1066 would have had far less financial responsibilities than his counterpart in the 14th century. This is partly because weapons and armour had evolved to the point if being quite expensive, but a larger part if this had to due with evolution of feudalism and the increasing financial pressures placed on the knightly class.

In simple terms, once the Angevines lost their holdings on the continent, royal revenue was gutted. To make up for the shortfall, taxes skyrocketed. Suddenly, the amount of land a knight's grandfather held would not produce enough revenue to sustain his grandson's obligations. We increasingly see knights selling off bits of property to make good on short-term debts, but in reality only making their situation worse. To compound the problem, all land was subject to an inheritance tax which was arbitrarily assigned by the king. King John was notorious for extorting this tax at rates often higher than the land was worth/could generate.

While Magna Carta addressed some of these issues, the bottom line was the treasury of Henry II and Richard I would have been nearly 3 times as large as John, Henry III, or Edward I. During the reign of these three monarchs, the knightly class shrank substantially. People actively avoided the accolade because it just wasn't worth the financial burden. As a result, the knights that are left are really more like Barons and super-rich to boot.

Ian:
Good stuff Sir Patrick!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page