Man-at-Arms vs Sergeant

[Corinthian Hoplite]

I want to know exactly what is the difference between a medieval sergeant and a contemporary man-at-arms.

Some games depict the sergeant as a low ranking professional soldier, usually a spearman; the man-at-arms is often a veteran sergeant, armed with a more offensive weapon.

Other sources say that all non-knightly soldiers were men-at-arms, while the sergeants were composed by squires and such.

I would like to know how much this is true, and the roles of each in an army.

 

[NecroBones]

Unfortunately games generally don't give you a good picture of historical troops, especially since the game needs specific names for different types of troops with different equipment loadouts and skill levels when distinctions might not have existed in period.

Generally a man-at-arms is someone who is trained in the use of arms, and is a career warrior of some kind. This is a distinction from many of the "soldiers" that would have made up much of the fighting armies in the early and middle medieval period, which were mostly comprised of peasants, merchants, farmers, and so on, who were not trained soldiers as such. This period of history saw very few standing armies in Europe.

 

[Corinthian Hoplite]

And what were sergeants?

 

[Lion]

Well for me the term "man-at-arms" or "gent d'armes", in french, is a mounted warrior (noble or not, knight or squire or not) who have some men under is control (a "lance" between 3-10 men). The sergeant is a professionnal foot soldier use by a lord for public security, recover the tax, escort in travel and of course for war. But there are lots of terms used to call a medieval soldier, I know them in french but not in english so dont ask them to me...

edit in early and mid medieval era the terms used were milites for knight and miles for soldiers.

- Lion -

 

[quiet420]

If we're talking about normans, a man at arms typically refers to a professional soldier who is a member of a lord's retinue.
A serjeant is the next step up.
And being knighted would follow that.

So, it's safe to say that all knights and serjeants are men at arms, however, the reverse is not true.

It was a little different for the germanic and french warriors.

as far as the role of sergeants (or more correctly for the period, serjeants)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serjeanty

 

[Archonsod]

A man - at - arms is the bottom rung of the career military chaps. Sergeant is merely derived from servant, though it's specific to a militant sense from around the thirteenth century. Initially, a Sergeant would be a trusted man charged with protecting his lord in battle.

 

[Cirdan]

It depends wildly. Serjeant or sergeant was used to designate a number of different categories, including:
--Urban militiamen with polearms
--Rural troops who, without being professional, were better armed and trained than your standard levies
--French royal guards of common birth ('Serjeants du Roy', fighting as heavily armoured macemen)
--Policemen in some cities
--etc,etc

Man-at-arms commonly meant a professional soldier retained by a nobleman. By the later phases of the Hundred Years' War, 'man-at-arms' came to designate heavily armoured troops, including noblemen.

The low ranking professional soldier with a polearm was referred to in Old French as a coustilleur (modern French coutilier). The litteral equivalent would be the English billman, though that may (or may not) have been reserved for billmen who were recruited from the yeomanry.

 

[Archonsod]

Serjeant or sergeant was used to designate a number of different categories,

They all have the same meaning, colloquially they would be referred to as "The lord's men" or "chosen man" (a more modern equivalent might be civil servant, especially with police forces). The idea is that they're directly employed or directly responsible to the owner of the force, whether that's a lord or a township. It was used to distinguish them from mercenaries or levies 'outsourced' for a specific campaign or reason; i.e. the sergeant was a permanent, full time employee of his master. It  retained the meaning in later times as the first NCO rank  (Interestingly, the rank of corporal sprang from the practice of sergeants appointing their own chosen men as a 'second in command' role).

The low ranking professional soldier with a polearm was referred to in Old French as a coustilleur (modern French coutilier). The litteral equivalent would be the English billman, though that may (or may not) have been reserved for billmen who were recruited from the yeomanry.

Probably Yeomanry. Most billmen were semi-pro at best, and usually entered on the books as archers.

 

[Cirdan]

Serjeant or sergeant was used to designate a number of different categories,

They all have the same meaning, colloquially they would be referred to as "The lord's men" or "chosen man" (a more modern equivalent might be civil servant, especially with police forces). The idea is that they're directly employed or directly responsible to the owner of the force, whether that's a lord or a township. It was used to distinguish them from mercenaries or levies 'outsourced' for a specific campaign or reason; i.e. the sergeant was a permanent, full time employee of his master. It  retained the meaning in later times as the first NCO rank  (Interestingly, the rank of corporal sprang from the practice of sergeants appointing their own chosen men as a 'second in command' role).

They weren't necessary professional/full-time though. Many were militia. But they were their lord's 'servants'.

Probably Yeomanry. Most billmen were semi-pro at best, and usually entered on the books as archers.

Well, melee troops being designated as 'archers' was nothing new in the Middle Ages. In the 16th century, the French would field 'archers' who were in fact a type of light cavalry (strictly melee only). This came from the fact that, at one point, the lances in the companies of the 'Grande Ordonnance'--the standing manoeuvering army, as opposed to the permanent garrisons who formed the 'Petite Ordonnance'--had included a number of mounted archers ('mounted' means they had a horse, not that they actually fought from the saddle), then, when the bow was being abandoned, a decree ordered the archers to become light melee cav (the logic being, that since they had horses they must already know how to ride), but nobody thought it necessary to change their name. There was also a point where Charles VII's government decided to simplify the pay scale by dividing all its mercenaries in two categories--men-at-arms and gens de trait (litterally "shaft people", or in mroe modern speech, "arrow people"). Of course, what determined which category a man belonged to was his armour--a crossbowman in full plate would have been classified as a man-at-arms and a coustilleur as an homme de trait.

Not to mention that until that point, a favourite trick of mercenary captains was to borrow crossbows from each other so that they could pass off their light infantry as crossbowmen, who would draw more pay. In fact, the big motivations behind the first military reviews was to make sure all the people enlisted as crossbowmen actually had their own crossbow (the reviews were held without warning) and that they could use their crossbows (they were required to fire several bolts at a target each during the review).

 

[Archonsod]

Standard practice in the English army was for a knight or lord to enter his domestic retinue on the lists as 'archers', permissable since they were responsible for guarding the baggage train (or at least that part of it belonging to their lord). Of course, this was abused to the point where it wasn't unusual to have the Lord's entire family and household staff (including children too young to even walk) entered on the lists as 'archers', despite being on a different continent.
The practice continued until the mid 19th century too.

They weren't necessary professional/full-time though. Many were militia. But they were their lord's 'servants'.

If they were a sergeant they were full time, simply not full time soldiers (although in this case full time would cover those paid a retainer, such as militia, when not directly performing in the role).. Originally the term sergeant carried no military connotations, hence the seperation to "sergeant at arms" for a full time military servant. I guess the main distinction between a domestic or ordinary servant and a sergeant was that the sergeant tended to be the 'muscle' of a household.

 

[MidnightWolf]

during wor it was illegal to have a standing army. thus u had a lord and his retinue.  "but my king i have to have 4 men just for 1 job...

 

[Cirdan]

They weren't necessary professional/full-time though. Many were militia. But they were their lord's 'servants'.

If they were a sergeant they were full time, simply not full time soldiers (although in this case full time would cover those paid a retainer, such as militia, when not directly performing in the role).. Originally the term sergeant carried no military connotations, hence the seperation to "sergeant at arms" for a full time military servant. I guess the main distinction between a domestic or ordinary servant and a sergeant was that the sergeant tended to be the 'muscle' of a household.

Again, not necessarily. In an urban militia the sergeants wouldn't usually be paid or anything when off-service, sometimes not even when they were on service.

during wor it was illegal to have a standing army. thus u had a lord and his retinue.  "but my king i have to have 4 men just for 1 job...

Does the word 'litteracy' ring a bell, or does that have to many syllables for you? If you had something worthwhile to say, could you please translate it into English?

 

[Archonsod]

Again, not necessarily. In an urban militia the sergeants wouldn't usually be paid or anything when off-service, sometimes not even when they were on service.

As I understand it most militia's were paid, even if just in kind. Of course, it depends on where you draw the line between "town militia" and "armed mob". Depends on how you define Sergeant too; a militia sergeant may be recognised by civil administration, but not necessarily by the military (or whatever passed for such organisations at the given time). Mind you, I can't help but wonder if some of that is down to the pay

Does the word 'litteracy' ring a bell, or does that have to many syllables for you? If you had something worthwhile to say, could you please translate it into English?

I think he was stating that it was illegal to have a standing army in times of war. Still doesn't make much sense though

 

[NecroBones]

during wor it was illegal to have a standing army. thus u had a lord and his retinue.  "but my king i have to have 4 men just for 1 job...

Does the word 'litteracy' ring a bell, or does that have to many syllables for you? If you had something worthwhile to say, could you please translate it into English?

You mean 'literacy'

He's referring to the War of the Roses ("WOR"), saying that you'd see lords with their respective retinues instead of standing armies, since the latter was illegal at the time. It was a way to get around the restriction and bend the rules.

 

[Cirdan]

You mean 'literacy'

Indeed . That's my cue to use not living in an English-speaking country as an excuse .

[/quote]

He's referring to the War of the Roses ("WOR"), saying that you'd see lords with their respective retinues instead of standing armies, since the latter was illegal at the time. It was a way to get around the restriction and bend the rules.

Hmmm, you mean private armies, I take it. The English nobility weren't supposed to maintain them but they did so under the guise of servants until Henry VII made it illegal to have to many servants Private armies weren't necessarily standing armies, though. In fact, the only exmaple of a noble having a standing private army I can think of was Charles le Téméraire (Charles the Reckless, Duke of Burgundy) who established a standard army by an ordinance in 1471 mimicking those of the French kings. But then, he was making a bid at independance at the time.

 

[Corinthian Hoplite]

So, basically, a man-at-arms is any kind of professional soldier, while the sergeant is still undecided?

 

[Archonsod]

A man at arms would be a professional full time soldier. A sergeant would be a professional 'servant', which would usually include military duties in some capacity.

 

[italiano]

So how did you become a man-at-arms? Were most squires, squires no longer (but not knights), mercs and of course knights? If so, it feels wrong to recruit them in the way you recruit a tier 1 troop and this is the way my current recruitment system handles the professional troops. It also feels wrong to train them from scratch as it should take a while and would also mean the lord pays for the equipment (although I'm sure there are instances were lords offered "lay-by", i.e. pay it off over time). They can also be hired as mercenaries but it would be good to develop a system that feels right. Also, equipment was quite expensive and although men-at-arms usually seem to be portrayed as heavily equipped, could squires really afford the equipment or were they usually looked after (sponsored) by a wealthier man-at-arms? I know knights usually had a few retainers (multiple squires?) and I would guess that the well-to-do men-at-arms that weren't knighted would do the same? Professional troops would be expensive to hire full-time so I assume a lord wouldn't actually hire many and would buy them off by offering land for service (although to what extent; would knights have done this as well?). Would most men-at-arms have been the retainers of lords or mercenaries?

Currently I don't allow men-at-arms to be upgraded from militia as I would guess that this was a rarity.

 

[Corinthian Hoplite]

Have you considered the case of being full time peasant soldiers, serving directly under a knight or lord?

 

[quiet420]

So how did you become a man-at-arms? Were most squires, squires no longer (but not knights), mercs and of course knights? If so, it feels wrong to recruit them in the way you recruit a tier 1 troop and this is the way my current recruitment system handles the professional troops. It also feels wrong to train them from scratch as it should take a while and would also mean the lord pays for the equipment (although I'm sure there are instances were lords offered "lay-by", i.e. pay it off over time). They can also be hired as mercenaries but it would be good to develop a system that feels right. Also, equipment was quite expensive and although men-at-arms usually seem to be portrayed as heavily equipped, could squires really afford the equipment or were they usually looked after (sponsored) by a wealthier man-at-arms? I know knights usually had a few retainers (multiple squires?) and I would guess that the well-to-do men-at-arms that weren't knighted would do the same? Professional troops would be expensive to hire full-time so I assume a lord wouldn't actually hire many and would buy them off by offering land for service (although to what extent; would knights have done this as well?). Would most men-at-arms have been the retainers of lords or mercenaries?

Currently I don't allow men-at-arms to be upgraded from militia as I would guess that this was a rarity.

You became a man at arms by picking up arms, and being recognized as a professional, in service of your lord and/or country.

Your confusing the term man at arms with sergeant.

All knights were by definition, men at arms.
Most sergeants were men at arms.
Some men at arms were sergeants, and some were knights, but most were neither.

If you insisted on using the term man-at-arms in it's proper sense, you would replace all the troop at all levels past recruit and prior to and in most cases including sergeantry, knighthood, or nobility with varying builds called men at arms.

When people are using the term to refer to members of a lords entourage, typically they are referring to knights, sergeants, and veteran soldiers, which can be explained quite easily: look at it this way, if you were a lord, would you want your private entourage filled with every half-breed and dimwit with a drop of royal blood.....OR.....would you rather fight alongside a personal attache of the fittest and most accomplished warriors of all castes?