knights and men-at-arms

[marycatelli]

So what's the difference between the knight and the man-at-arms?

Was a time when there was none.  A cniht was just a man who fought.  (Indeed, originally he was just an attendant or servant, but what on earth did the king have men for except to fight for him?)  That he was of noble birth stemmed from the nobles' keeping the fighting powers in their own hands.  More or less, though they were known to suppress peasant militias, even ones that fought the Vikings and otherwise the king's enemies.  This is why the Latin translation of "knight" is miles.

The rise of a rich merchant class made them feel the pinch, which is where they invented the ceremony of knighting.  Fatal in some ways.  Once you no longer have to fight to qualify as a knight, the fat rich merchant you minded so much can get himself knighted with a good fat purse, and there's the end of your distinction.  On the other hand, the ceremony can lend a useful mystical aura to the role; Chaucer has a notable reverence for it.

And supposing you have knights and men-at-arms in the novel, there's the question of how to distinguish. . . .

In some lands, the knights will all be men of noble, or at least gentle, blood.  Haughty about their prerogatives.  Only the lowest ranks would even consider marrying the richest merchant's daughter, unless he had wangled some post in the royal court to get himself technically ennobled.

Other lands have a stout burgher and freeholder militia and would laugh to scorn the notion of a fancy ceremony.

The problem lands in the borderlands, where I have a fortress standing between the places of danger and the settled and more-or-less peaceful lands.  The muse ambled along with men-at-arms and knights, but didn't go into detail.  I suspect that a peasant who distinguished himself and desired it could get himself knighted there, but -- differences, differences -- the mystical aura could come in handy. . .  perhaps the knights are oath-bound to the fortress, never to leave.  Or perhaps they are the only ones bound to set forth into the places of danger at need. . . ponder, ponder, ponder. . .

Comments

[eric-hinkle.livejournal.com]

I thought that, based on the books I've read, the difference between knight and man-at-arms was that the first was a low-level noble owing service as a fighting man to his liege as a feudal obligation, and the other was a low-level noble who was a full-time paid soldier.

[marycatelli]

No, a man-at-arms would be a commoner, not a noble. At least by the books I've read. Indeed, knights were often full-time paid soldiers, effectively, once bastard feudalism came into play.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

Enlisted vs officer was the impression I had.

[marycatelli]

Certainly the effect is much like that.

[izuko.livejournal.com]

I would suggest that the knight has some governing duties - he is, after all, a noble. The man-at-arms has only an obligation to fight.

[marycatelli]

If we are dealing with pure feudalism, and he holds a knight's fee -- the amount of land that is supposed to yield one knight -- yes, he has some governing duties. However, even in those days there were landless knights hoping to hook up with some lord or another. And bastard feudalism arose quickly, where the knight got money rather than land.