Men at Arms: Difference between revisions

From 2d4chan
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
m (14 revisions imported)
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Knight]]s in the Middle ages were required to arm themselves and support those that they swore fealty to. But that was just part of it. They would also be required to find one or more men, give them some basic armor and weapons, some basic training and room, board, food and maybe a few coins. These armed men were known as Sergeants or '''Men-At-Arms'''. Their function was to provide infantry support to their lords in battle, defend the knight's fief when he was away, kill bandits and keep those bloody [[peasant]]s in line. Sometimes they would be backed up by mercenaries or militias of armed townsfolk. They got a cut of any loot they managed to pillage and if they were particularly good in battle, they might receive a knighthood of their own.
[[File:Duerer - Studie Reiter 1495.jpg|thumb|right|A German man-at-arms by Albrecht Dürer, 1498.]]
A type of Medieval soldier, mostly referring to "professional" soldiers before organized militaries were really a thing. See, when called to battle, knights were expected to provide additional troops along with their own armored and horse-riding ass. Knights (and higher nobles) were land owners and as such were expected to raise numbers of soldiers from amongst the men who owed them fealty. They equipped and trained them as they saw fit and could afford and gave them what training they could. However each man that was busy training couldn't work and bring in money, so well-trained people, the "Men-at-Arms" were few in numbers. A knight's retinue would probably include a number of archers, conscripted peasants given weapons and a week of training, and a core of men-at-arms that were better equipped and trained. Men-at-arms more expensive to equip and maintain being better armoured and armed than the smelly peasants and foot soldiers, and often mounted on warhorses to fulfill cavalry roles if there weren't enough knights as horses were fucking expensive, were not that easy to replace; so better to have someone else put his horse on the line instead of yours. A well-off knight might, for a campaign, bring with him 40 men-at-arms and 200 mixed archers and conscripted peasants. (However, a Knight ''may also be'' a man-at-arms, if he were capable of fighting because Knighthood is not a military rank but a nobility rank. Yeah, it was complicated like that.)


- This synopsis is not strictly correct. Knights were expected to provide additional troops. They were land owners and as such were expected to raise numbers of soldiers from the amongst the men who owed them fealty. They equipped and trained them as they saw fit. Thus a knight's retinue would probably include a number of archers, foot soldiers and men-at-arms. Because men at arms were more expensive to equip and maintain (being better armoured and equipped, and often mounted on warhorses. A well-off knight might, for a campaign, bring with him 40 men at arms and 200 mixed archers and infantry. However, a Knight ''would also be'' a man-at-arms.
The bloke in the shiny armour on the horse with the lance, that bloke is a man-at-arms. He might also be a Knight. He might be a Lord/Baron/Duke/... instead. He might be a member of the gentry, aspiring to raise his status. By the late Middle Ages/early modern period the gentry emerge as a social class, i.e. higher than some smelly commoner, but not even a minor noble. This happened broadly across Europe because as nation-states evolve, they create increasing amounts of bureaucracy. Jobs that are too important (and need an education to do) to allow Gerald the Peasant to do it; but beneath the nobles, who are otherwise preoccupied with more important stuff. That man-at-arms might also, however, be a commoner in his Lord's retinue acting as a professional soldier or a mercenary.


The bloke in the shiny armour on the horse with the lance, that bloke is a man-at-arms. He might be a Knight. He might be a Lord. He might be a member of the gentry, aspiring to raise his status (by the late Middle Ages / early modern period the gentry emerge as a social class, i.e. not some smelly commoner, but not even a minor noble. This happens broadly across europe because as nation-states evolve, they create increasing amounts of bureaucracy. Jobs that are too important [and need an education to do] to allow Gerald the Peasant to do it, but beneath the nobles, who are otherwise preoccupied with more important stuff). That man-at-arms might also, however, be a commoner in his Lord's retinue or a mercenary.
TL/DR: Men-at-Arms are a type of medieval soldier. Better equipped and armoured than their archer and footsoldier bretheren (i.e. your levvies, billmen, militia, spearmen and the like), they often fought on horseback. A Knight is a person of a certain social status. Because status brought wealth, he would almost invariably fight as a really well equipped man-at-arms.  
 
TL/DR: Men-at-Arms are a type of medieval soldier. Better equipped and armoured than their archer and footsoldier bretheren (i.e. your levvies, billmen, militia, spearmen and the like), they often fought on horseback. A Knight is a person of a certain social status. Because status brought wealth, he would almost invariably fight as a man-at-arms.  


==Gallery==
<gallery>
Man at arms.jpg|Example
Men-at-Arms-wraithdt.jpg|A Man-at-Arms by Darren Tan/wraithdt
Maa-knight-graham-turner.jpg|A knight or man-at-arms c.1390 by Graham Turner.
Crécy_-_Grandes_Chroniques_de_France.jpg|French and English men-at-arms fighting in a depiction of the Battle of Crécy, 1346, from the Grandes Chroniques de France.
Xw1llulsakf71.jpg|The French assaulting a Burgundian-held castle in the 15th century, by Igor Dzis
Armor evolution middle-rennaisance ages.jpg|A rough progression of European armor evolution ffrom the start of the High Middle Ages till the 17th century.
</gallery>


{{Stub}}
{{Stub}}
[[category:History]]
[[category:History]]

Latest revision as of 22:24, 21 June 2023

A German man-at-arms by Albrecht Dürer, 1498.

A type of Medieval soldier, mostly referring to "professional" soldiers before organized militaries were really a thing. See, when called to battle, knights were expected to provide additional troops along with their own armored and horse-riding ass. Knights (and higher nobles) were land owners and as such were expected to raise numbers of soldiers from amongst the men who owed them fealty. They equipped and trained them as they saw fit and could afford and gave them what training they could. However each man that was busy training couldn't work and bring in money, so well-trained people, the "Men-at-Arms" were few in numbers. A knight's retinue would probably include a number of archers, conscripted peasants given weapons and a week of training, and a core of men-at-arms that were better equipped and trained. Men-at-arms more expensive to equip and maintain being better armoured and armed than the smelly peasants and foot soldiers, and often mounted on warhorses to fulfill cavalry roles if there weren't enough knights as horses were fucking expensive, were not that easy to replace; so better to have someone else put his horse on the line instead of yours. A well-off knight might, for a campaign, bring with him 40 men-at-arms and 200 mixed archers and conscripted peasants. (However, a Knight may also be a man-at-arms, if he were capable of fighting because Knighthood is not a military rank but a nobility rank. Yeah, it was complicated like that.)

The bloke in the shiny armour on the horse with the lance, that bloke is a man-at-arms. He might also be a Knight. He might be a Lord/Baron/Duke/... instead. He might be a member of the gentry, aspiring to raise his status. By the late Middle Ages/early modern period the gentry emerge as a social class, i.e. higher than some smelly commoner, but not even a minor noble. This happened broadly across Europe because as nation-states evolve, they create increasing amounts of bureaucracy. Jobs that are too important (and need an education to do) to allow Gerald the Peasant to do it; but beneath the nobles, who are otherwise preoccupied with more important stuff. That man-at-arms might also, however, be a commoner in his Lord's retinue acting as a professional soldier or a mercenary.

TL/DR: Men-at-Arms are a type of medieval soldier. Better equipped and armoured than their archer and footsoldier bretheren (i.e. your levvies, billmen, militia, spearmen and the like), they often fought on horseback. A Knight is a person of a certain social status. Because status brought wealth, he would almost invariably fight as a really well equipped man-at-arms.

Gallery[edit]

  • Example

    Example

  • A Man-at-Arms by Darren Tan/wraithdt

    A Man-at-Arms by Darren Tan/wraithdt

  • A knight or man-at-arms c.1390 by Graham Turner.

    A knight or man-at-arms c.1390 by Graham Turner.

  • French and English men-at-arms fighting in a depiction of the Battle of Crécy, 1346, from the Grandes Chroniques de France.

    French and English men-at-arms fighting in a depiction of the Battle of Crécy, 1346, from the Grandes Chroniques de France.

  • The French assaulting a Burgundian-held castle in the 15th century, by Igor Dzis

    The French assaulting a Burgundian-held castle in the 15th century, by Igor Dzis

  • A rough progression of European armor evolution ffrom the start of the High Middle Ages till the 17th century.

    A rough progression of European armor evolution ffrom the start of the High Middle Ages till the 17th century.

This article is a stub. You can help 1d4chan by expanding it
Retrieved from "http://23.235.193.55/mediawiki/index.php?title=Men_at_Arms&oldid=352115"