Men at Arms - Revision history

imported>Administrator: 14 revisions imported

2023-06-22T03:24:35Z

14 revisions imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 03:24, 22 June 2023
(No difference)

imported>Administrator: 1 revision imported

2023-06-19T02:43:15Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 02:43, 19 June 2023
(No difference)

2607:FB91:11D5:4478:451D:E2A3:6402:C27E: /* Gallery */

2023-06-05T18:47:52Z

Gallery

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, 5 June 2023
Line 13:		Line 13:
	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.		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		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>		</gallery>

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

97.93.208.12: /* Gallery */

2022-06-15T04:53:32Z

Gallery

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:53, 15 June 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:
	==Gallery==		==Gallery==
	<gallery>		<gallery>
	~~File:~~Man at arms.jpg\|Example		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
	</gallery>		</gallery>

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

97.93.208.12 at 04:38, 15 June 2022

2022-06-15T04:38:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:38, 15 June 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[[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.)		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.)

206.213.251.38 at 15:11, 23 May 2022

2022-05-23T15:11:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:11, 23 May 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	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 ''~~would~~ also be'' a man-at-arms because Knighthood is not a military rank but a nobility rank. Yeah, it was complicated like that.)		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.		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.

1d4chan>GloriousGidofter at 18:16, 8 April 2019

2019-04-08T18:16:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 8 April 2019
Line 5:		Line 5:
	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 really well equipped man-at-arms.

			==Gallery==
			<gallery>
			File:Man at arms.jpg\|Example
			</gallery>

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

195.62.68.228 at 09:03, 22 September 2017

2017-09-22T09:03:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:03, 22 September 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~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, conscripted peasants given weapons and a week of training, and men-at-arms. Men-at-arms ~~were~~ 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 ''would also be'' a man-at-arms because a Knighthood is ''not a military rank''.		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 ''would also be'' a man-at-arms 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 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. ~~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 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 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.		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.

68.190.127.72: Undo revision 320768 by 63.245.62.157 (talk)

2016-01-04T06:40:50Z

Undo revision 320768 by 63.245.62.157 (talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:40, 4 January 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~delete~~}}		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, conscripted peasants given weapons and a week of training, and men-at-arms. Men-at-arms were 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 ''would also be'' a man-at-arms because a Knighthood is ''not a military rank''.

			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 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. 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 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.


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

63.245.62.157: Replaced content with "{{delete}}"

2016-01-04T04:25:50Z

Replaced content with "{{delete}}"

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:25, 4 January 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	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, conscripted peasants given weapons and a week of training, and men-at-arms. Men-at-arms were 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 ''would also be'' a man-at-arms because a Knighthood is ''not a military rank''.		{{delete}}

	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 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. 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 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.


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