Man-at-Arms vs Sergeant

[italiano]

Your confusing the term man at arms with sergeant.

Actually, I never used the term "sergeant", although I was under the impression that most were men-at-arms of a higher status than most.

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.

I had already done that, although not in the cases of sergeants and above since I think in a game it doesn't hurt to distinguish between the different levels of men-at-arms (particularly knights and above). I know what a men-at-arms were; I'm interested in how they came to be.

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

Yes, but how did you pay for the arms? How did you get the experience or training to become skillful enough to be considered as "professional"? I can't imagine a peasant saving up for a hauberk and paying for lessons. Training and equipment would have been expensive and they needed to get the money from somewhere. I can imagine a lord's man-at-arms coming to be in these ways:

1. Becoming the squire of a wealthy man-at-arms.
2. A peasant who got lucky looting or something and got himself some training and equipment.
3. A peasant who has become experienced and is "promoted".
4. A former mercenary.
5. The lord selects some recruits with potential from his lands and has them trained and equipped.

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

Yes as I consider "recruits" as militia at the moment. Not as well-quipped or well-trained as proper professional troops, but far from rabble as well. In medieval times, I'm sure a lord would train up peasants when he didn't have access to professional troops (too expensive or just not available), or had time on his hands and/or wanted to do it cheaply. In Calradia though, it makes more sense than what I had admitted. I've already made the case for there to be semi-professional troops in the form of militia so given time, battle experience and the opportunity to loot, it's only natural that they represent your pool of potential men-at-arms, although technically they're men-at-arms as soon as you "hire" them (as they cease to be militia and enter full-time employement). It seems that having militia upgrade to men-at-arms is entirely reasonable given the setting, and along with hiring mercenary troops it seems that the problem over how to recruit men-at-arms is solved.

Finally, is it reasonable for a peasant often to aspire to becoming a professional soldier? I imagine they were paid decently, looked after and the military seemed to offer a good opportunity to advancement.

 

[quiet420]

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

Yes, but how did you pay for the arms? How did you get the experience or training to become skillful enough to be considered as "professional"? I can't imagine a peasant saving up for a hauberk and paying for lessons. Training and equipment would have been expensive and they needed to get the money from somewhere. I can imagine a lord's man-at-arms coming to be in these ways:

1. Becoming the squire of a wealthy man-at-arms.
2. A peasant who got lucky looting or something and got himself some training and equipment.
3. A peasant who has become experienced and is "promoted".
4. A former mercenary.
5. The lord selects some recruits with potential from his lands and has them trained and equipped.

The question is about as difficult to answer as if you asked how a soldier got his gear or became a nco or co in the modern military forces. While there are some broad generalities, it would certainly  vary form country to country, and probably even on smaller scales.


Being a squire may, but would not necessarily mean being a man at arms.
I dunno, unless he was involved in the battle, one would think convention and the unwritten warriors code would brand him worthy of capital punishment for disturbing the peace and possessions of those who fell in battle. (spoils are for the victors, not the vagrants)
If, say, he was drafted for a short term of service, and instead of returning home with the rest of the men, wished to remain a soldier in his lords service? Yes.
A former mercenary is a former man at arms....a mercenary being a professional soldier after all.
In most cultures, when your talking about a real war, whether the soldiers in question are professional or militias, their weapons are typically provided for them by their lords.

 

[italiano]

A former mercenary is a former man at arms

Yes, but I'm referring to a situation where a mercenary is employed to a permanent position. By "man-at-arms" I was referring to those that had served a lord rarther than those who hired out their services.

their weapons are typically provided for them by their lords

So hiring them should have a significant upfront expense, simulating them being equipped. Although I imagine that gear would be reused if possible, such as that from a retiree, deceased, looted and repaired etc?

 

[quiet420]

Yup, now just keep in mind, in some martial cultures, weapons such as swords would be viewed as symbols of prestige, and may, in addition, be handed down from generation to generation, even amongst peasants.

I would imagine that in the case of relatively primative raiding cultures, weapons such as axes and spears may be provided, as the lord would have the capacity to produce them as domestic instruments, but quality swords in such a culture would be rare indeed as they may lack the technology and resources for proper sword finishing, not to mention trading partners in general for aquiring sword blanks.

 

[Archonsod]

I had already done that, although not in the cases of sergeants and above since I think in a game it doesn't hurt to distinguish between the different levels of men-at-arms (particularly knights and above). I know what a men-at-arms were; I'm interested in how they came to be.

There wasn't really a differing level of man at arms. There was no point at which Herbert the Archer became Herbert the Man at Arms. The main difference was in pay, a man at arms receiving twice that of an archer. Recognition depended on what you were entered onto the lists as, usually you'd find out which lords were recruiting and present yourself to them, requesting they enlist you as a man at arms. They might accept, or refuse, or offer you a lower rank. Needless to say, actual skill would be secondary to reputation or personal relationship with the lord who was recruiting.

Finally, is it reasonable for a peasant often to aspire to becoming a professional soldier? I imagine they were paid decently, looked after and the military seemed to offer a good opportunity to advancement.

Yes and no. The largest problem you'd have as a professional would be unfortunate outbreaks of peace, at which point unless you were incredibly lucky you'd be out of a job. There were also big risks, since there was no such thing as a war pension and the odds of being crippled were high. For a peasant dependent on the income from the job rather than those with their own means the best option would be either joining a mercenary outfit (in which case you'd always be employed) or being a semi pro (i.e. hired by a lord as permanent staff who'd be expected to take to the field when necessary).

 

[italiano]

There wasn't really a differing level of man at arms

My "levels" are your standard man-at-arms, sergeants, knights, barons and so on. My point where Herbert the Archer becomes Herbert the Man-at-Arms doesn't actually exist, the upgrade option may eventually be offered, but the idea is for it to simulate Herbert sticking up his hand and saying he wants to serve as a man-at-arms. It's your decision whether you promote him or not.

Needless to say, actual skill would be secondary to reputation or personal relationship with the lord who was recruiting.

All men-at-arms are roughly as skillful as each other in my mod. There is some difference in quality of equipment (although there's actually more variation in any single level) but the main difference is status.

 

[Archonsod]

Switching it around might make more sense. You'd not necessarily know whether the guy asking to be recruited was a seasoned veteran or just a peasant who fancied his chances. Given that the man at arms would be earning more then it would make sense that he'd be the guy who could afford the better equipment.

The only problem would be fitting in differing skill profiles (though I suppose you could use a template and rely on the vagaries of the random level assignment). It might be interesting to have skills varied across the board. You'd then have the possibility of a man at arms who was useless, but had some decent equipment (presumably the kind of "I owed his father a favour" recruitment) and a highly skilled peasant with relatively poor equipment (maybe he just prefers farming to war).

 

[italiano]

Switching it around might make more sense

If I understand correctly you're not asking for a switch as equipment already varies, you're just saying that skill for a specific troop should greatly vary within a group of that troop. I'd love to do that but as you said it would be a problem to implement. Creating multiple copies of the same troop (with variations in skill) would lead to a mess in the party screen, mouse-over party info, wouldn't work with the upgrading system (it would make it quite silly) and would also make things a challenge when implementing a recruitment system (the men-at-arms option would have to select just one of the multiple variations each time).

One way to vary skill, assuming troops experience proficiency gain in battle, would be to increase Weapon Master to 10. The troops wouldn't start off varied skill-wise, but that would quickly change.

 

[Archonsod]

Nah, I don't think it actually tracks between battles. I know if you assign too few skill points to make up the troops level the game randomly assigns the remainder, I'm not sure if you can use the knows_x flags to control which skills the points go into or whether it's completely random.

 

[The Wandering Knight]

Like England, Normandy at the beginning of the eleventh century was a rich and well administered state, already truly feudal in that the duchy was subdivided into fiefs, each owing knight-service to the duke in direct proportion to its size and value.  There was no obligation to serve beyond the orders of Normandy itself, however, and still less overseas; when the army did finally embark for England, nearly one half of it was composed of mercenaries, lesser knights and those seeking to advance their fortune or social status through booty or new estates.  Many of those who did accompany the duke did so more from feelings of personal loyalty and trust in him as a leader than because the feudal system compelled them to.  William's knights, however, were the essential nucleus of his army; it was this full-time military professionalism that lead to the social elevation of the knightly class throughout Europe.  Before the 'bestowal of arms' that constituted the ceremony of knighthood, the knight had to undergo a long period of apprenticeship and an 'armiger' (squire), during which he became skilled at the craft of war.  Such was the expense of his weapons, armour, horse, and other equipment, however, together with the necessity for free time in which to devote himself to constant training and practice, that inevitably it was largely only the noble class who could aspire to such a rank, eventually regarding it as their own especial right.  There were many landless or 'lesser' knights in the service of their more powerful and well-established fellows, of course, but the 'enfeoffed' knight was always regarded as a social superior.  The landed knights under William and his tenants-in-chief were called 'barones'; landed free-men who had not yet attained the rank of knight where known as 'vavasseurs', and those posessing less than a full knight's fee where known as 'sergeants', and where similarly armed and armoured mounted troops who fought along side the knight in battle, but without possessing his rank or status.

All of these men are "men at arms", that is, soldiers who are free-men.  A modern allegory is like saying "All Marines are riflemen, but not all riflemen are Marines."

 

[The Wandering Knight]

And if that was tl;dnr, shame on you >:O

To summarize:  Knight = man at arms with land that gives him wealth and status; sergeant = man at arms with less than a full grant of land.

 

[Archonsod]

Or to put it another way, Man at Arms = free man, Sergeant = servant (whether oath bound, employed as such or similar)

 

[The Wandering Knight]

No, a freeman is not a man-at-arms, but a man-at-arms is a freeman.  A freeman is someone who actually owns his own life.  He is not bound to the land under a lord (peasants are normally forbidden by law in some places from leaving).

 

[Archonsod]

Well obviously, unless the entire population militarised The difference (in case I wasn't being clear) is that a man at arms fights because he chose to, while a sergeant fights because he's been ordered to.

 

[italiano]

(whether oath bound, employed as such or similar)

This gives me the impression that men-at-arms are either part-timers or between employers.

To summarize:  Knight = man at arms with land that gives him wealth and status; sergeant = man at arms with less than a full grant of land.

So if knights were npcs in the game, you'd call all professional troops (below knight) sergeants?

 

[The Wandering Knight]

Some of them would be, yes.  They would be granted a bit of land, but not a full fief.

 

[Archonsod]

This gives me the impression that men-at-arms are either part-timers or between employers.

Sometimes they would be. The closest analogue would be a modern day defence contractor. They don't have to fight, but it's their main source of income. Some would want to be employed as much as possible, others might make enough from a single campaign to comfortably retire.

So if knights were npcs in the game, you'd call all professional troops (below knight) sergeants?

No. To re-use the above analogue, a sergeant is to a man at arms what a soldier is to a defence contractor. A sergeant has some kind of obligation to a superior (in this case most likely master - slave). If the soldiers in question were the household or retainers of the knight in question then odds are they'd be sergeants.

 

[italiano]

That part was for The Wandering Knight's definition. By concluding men-at-arms were part-timers or between employers, I mean that as soon as they become employed they are obligated to fight, so by your definition a man-at-arms is usually a sergeant, but isn't at this time because he isn't currently employed. I realise that you actually mean choice in a greater sense (i.e. sergeant "I have to serve", man-at-arms "I choose to serve for a period of time"). My problem is that these definitions seem to keep contradicting each other in some way.

Sergeant: less than a full grant of land.

Men-at-arms: professionals with a fief.

This conflicts with the idea that men-at-arms choose to serve (knights often don't have a choice) and doesn't deal with mercs and perhaps poorer knights. If we accept that sergeants must serve then we are suggesting that mercs actually belong in the men-at-arms class, but going by the above definition they won't be wealthy enough. I know that there were poorer knights and the excerpt that The Wandering Knight posted talks of lesser and landless knights (literally knights, or just similarily skilled and equipped professionals?). Would this mean knights without a fief, in which case they may be considered sergeants if they don't have a full grant of land?

Sergeant: no choice.

Men-at-arms: choice.

Doesn't fit with knights perhaps having a choice at times and obligated at other times, and if they're obligated then one of the definitions suggests that they must be a sergeant. Again, mercs have the choice but it's already been stated that men-at-arms were of a knightly status.

Questions:
If professionals who were obligated to serve were sergeants, why weren't knights sergeants?
If professionals are recruited from within your fief, would it be appropriate to label them as sergeants?
Is a merc a sergeant, a man-at-arms or can he be both?

If I can't nail down definitions (it seems that this may be difficult and that the terms weren't as specific as I want them to be) I'll define sergeants as professionals recruited from with your lands, and call mercenaries men-at-arms. Knights will probably be npcs so I don't really need to define them, although it would be interesting.

 

[The Wandering Knight]

Man-at-arms is a term to define ALL free men fighters, knight, sergeant, otherwise, in the service of a lord, landed or otherwise.

You get granted a small bit of land for your service?  Great, now you're a sergeant.  Own a full fee?  That makes you a knight of some sort.

If professionals who were obligated to serve were sergeants, why weren't knights sergeants?  -- Because knights have a full fee, or no fee at all.  It could be that there are knights with a small fee, but it's not to my knowledge.  I'd have to look into that.
If professionals are recruited from within your fief, would it be appropriate to label them as sergeants? -- Did you give them land?
Is a merc a sergeant, a man-at-arms or can he be both?  --  A mercenary is a man-at-arms, but if he owned land he would probably not be a mercenary, and thus cannot be someones sergeant.


Now, keep in mind this is from an 11th century outlook, from Normandy and England.

 

[Archonsod]

Sergeant: less than a full grant of land.

Men-at-arms: professionals with a fief.

Land isn't the defining factor. Just like a knight, a man at arms may own his own land or he might not. Land is generally not used as a defining factor, it's more a case of it being more usual for a knight to own land than not. In fact social class isn't really a defining factor - a sergeant of a wealthy noble or monarch may be a lot better off than some knights, let alone men at arms.

If we accept that sergeants must serve then we are suggesting that mercs actually belong in the men-at-arms class, but going by the above definition they won't be wealthy enough.

The difference between mercenaries and men at arms tends to blur. The biggest distinction is probably numbers - in general mercenaries would consist of a group, while men at arms would be individuals. Wealth also wouldn't factor in so much, at least in terms of land. Mercenaries (and for that matter Men at arms) receive payment for fighting rather than farming, it's not as stable as having your own land to draw income from, but you'd earn more per year than most small landholders if you could stay alive.

Would this mean knights without a fief, in which case they may be considered sergeants if they don't have a full grant of land?

No, a knight is a knight. Knighthood is usually granted by the monarch, so actual wealth or land is irrelevant (however, since land tended to be used as a 'bonus' the odds of being awarded land were probably good). Again, land isn't the best measure of wealth, especially by the later period. Craftsmen, landlords and merchants could all earn far more than smaller landholders; however their income would not necessarily be as stable.

Doesn't fit with knights perhaps having a choice at times and obligated at other times, and if they're obligated then one of the definitions suggests that they must be a sergeant.

Knighthood is an honour, not a rank. A knight can't be a sergeant, because he has a knighthood. Pre-knighthood though then yes, their status would depend on their circumstances. A servant of the King awarded a knighthood for his service may have been a sergeant, a noble of independent means on the other hand would have been a man at arms. It would depend on whether he was compelled to fight, or whether he chose to fight.

If professionals are recruited from within your fief, would it be appropriate to label them as sergeants?

Depends on the fief and therefore the men. If the professionals are part of the player's own household or retinue, or the peasants working the fief are all bound to their lord in some way then sergeants would be appropriate. If on the other hand the peasants rented their own land or were otherwise 'free' men then they'd be men at arms. Of course, there's no reason you couldn't have both from the same fief.

Is a merc a sergeant, a man-at-arms or can he be both?

Man at arms. It would be unlikely he'd be a sergeant.

You get granted a small bit of land for your service?  Great, now you're a sergeant.

Only if you were obligated to serve the lord granting you the land, which was normally a pre-requisite. Of course, plenty were granted land with no further obligations, especially if the giver were the church.