Man-at-Arms vs Sergeant

[Balinux]

How would equipment and fighting style vary between those 3?

 

[italiano]

That's the problem. One of you is saying that it is determined by land, while the other suggests that it depends on how they're employed (i.e. longterm service, oath bound, contract work etc).

A knight can't be a sergeant, because he has a knighthood

I know, but this conflicts with the suggestion that these categories are dependent on the grant of land. I know there were poorer knights, that some non-knightly men-at-arms may have been wealthier, and that excerpt suggests that not all knights were even granted land. I guess this is my argument to why land can't be the determining factor.

A knight can't be a sergeant, because he has a knighthood

Yes, I made that point to challenge the suggestion that the categories are soley dependent on "choice". Troops who don't have the freedom of other men-at-arms can't all be considered sergeants as knights will find themselves in the same position.

If the professionals are part of the player's own household or retinue

I believe that in M&B this would include all current non-mercenary recruits as we nearly always hire troops to permanent positions. We don't deal with levying troops or hiring men-at-arms just for a campaign.

 

[Archonsod]

How would equipment and fighting style vary between those 3?

Those three what? Most of the time it would come down to personal choice, so equipment would be dictated more by what the person in question could afford rather than class or rank.

That's the problem. One of you is saying that it is determined by land, while the other suggests that it depends on how they're employed (i.e. longterm service, oath bound, contract work etc).

Man at arms or sergeant is determined by employment terms rather than wealth or land. It depends on how finicky you want to be. Technically, a Sergeant is anyone bound to serve (it's where it get's it's modern designation from) while a man at arms is any free man willing to bear arms. In real terms, you could be either depending on a number of factors, for example I've already mentioned the practice of entering one's offspring or butler on the list as a sergeant for monetary gain, a man at arms might find himself entered as a sergeant (and vice versa) for financial reasons too. A knight is exclusively determined by the granting of a knighthood, anything else is moot. It's not until higher in the nobility that you need land (Lordships and up).

I believe that in M&B this would include all current non-mercenary recruits as we nearly always hire troops to permanent positions. We don't deal with levying troops or hiring men-at-arms just for a campaign.

You wouldn't just hire them for a campaign necessarily. For example, your castle or town guard could well be men at arms, or you may hire a personal guard as men at arms (though it would be unusual). In this case it wouldn't so much be a case of the player recruiting them to join his party, more a case of offering them extra pay to accompany you in your wanderings rather than the (relatively) safe job of making sure nobody steals your village while you're gone.
In terms of M&B, most troops would be men at arms since you ask them to volunteer when you visit a village. You could split it the same way, with men at arms being the main recruits (from villages owned by other lords), while sergeants are only available from your own fief (since you can take those who have sworn an oath of fealty to you as their lord). In fact, one nice way to do it would be to have the sergeants require no wages, since technically their pay would already be taken into account from your fief outcome.

 

[Balinux]

How would equipment and fighting style vary between those 3?

Those three what? Most of the time it would come down to personal choice, so equipment would be dictated more by what the person in question could afford rather than class or rank.

Then who would be likely to be better equiped? Sergeant or man-at-arms?

 

[Cirdan]

The richest guy, from the community where good weapons were most available. Doh.

 

[Balinux]

Then in the same comunity, who would be likely to be richer, sergeant or man-at-arms? 

 

[Cirdan]

Well, the richest guys around would probably be men-at-arms. But sometimes the sergeants got gear from their boss, just to muddy the waters as it were.

 

[Archonsod]

You'd have a pretty similar structure in both groups. Men at arms who were considered poor quality or during a time of peace might be poor, while others may make a fortune on a single campaign, especially with loot. A sergeant on the other hand depends on his master, a minor noble is unlikely to be able to afford to pay very highly, while the servant of a major noble or the monarch may well be wealthier than the lower aristocracy, especially if his lord is generous. Men at arms in general are probably likely to be better off than the lower rung of sergeants, simply because they would require some financial strength to be men at arms in the first place.

 

[The Wandering Knight]

Well, I was originally talking from a purely 11th century POV (I mentioned that).  A serjeant could be a number of things as time progressed; the unifying theme was that they served a higher master.

 

[Balinux]

So, man at arms = mercenary? What's the difference there?

 

[Archonsod]

Mercenaries were full time professional soldiers available to hire to the highest bidder, usually with their own accountant and similar business associates. Men at arms were generally individual chancers looking to make cash out of breaking someones skull.

 

[italiano]

Here's my take:

A man-at-arms is just a professionally trained and equipped soldier. A sergeant was a man-at-arms who permanently served a master. This may mean they aren't actually freemen (still tied to the lands of the lord) or that they are have longterm employment. To make the distinction, men-at-arms is often used to identify the men-at-arms who weren't sergeants. These would be the professionals who may be temporarily employed, but ultimately the decision of whether to fight is their own. This includes anyone on a short-term contract such as mercenaries or part-timers who many just show up for a campaign (hoping for a jackpot ransom or loot).

I admit I formed this conclusion before I started questioning everything ( ) but there were some contradictions that needed clearing up. By the way, I'm particularly interested in the latter 13th Century if that changes anything.

 

[Cirdan]

Here's my take:

A man-at-arms is just a professionally trained and equipped soldier. A sergeant was a man-at-arms who permanently served a master.

Definately not the case, at least in the later parts of the Middle Ages. Certainly by the 14th century man-at-arm implied heavy armour of the latest type (so chain mail may have been heavy armour in the past, but by 1400 it wouldn't be enough to qualify you as a man-at-arms). 'Sergeant' is a position, that is to say, one is appointed or hired as a sergeant by a higher authority, although the functions of the sergeant can vary quite alot. The two categories could overlap (and sometimes, contemporaries would refer to these overlaps as 'sergeants-at-arms', although in certain well-established and known corps this not necessary, e.g. French royal segreants), but the majority of sergeants were not men-at-arms or vice-versa. Probably the most familiar use of the term to a late medieval person would be a man who walked aorund with a stick in order to keep the peace in towns, so that 'the sergeants' would often be used the way today you'd say 'the cops'.

 

[Balinux]

Wich would be more likely to receive knighthood, if they ever did?

 

[Cirdan]

A knight is a man-at-arms with a knighthood. A squire, by the late Middle Ages, is a noble man-at-arms who isn't a knight. So obviously the man-at-arms, but if he isn't a squire, his chance are bloody low. If he is a squire, the odds that he'll find a knight willing to knight him eventually are fairly good.

 

[Archonsod]

Well, by the late middle ages it would be "whoever donates the most money to the crown"

 

[Cirdan]

Not really. By the 15th century a commoner could become a noted military commander, but being knighted would still be exceptional--it had just lost alot of its original meaning to become a mere ceremony (with some prestige still attached, of course).

 

[Archonsod]

The English monarch certainly ended up effectively selling knighthoods to fund his wars. Pretty sure it was fairly common throughout Europe. In the English case it led to a new non-hereditary title.

 

[Balinux]

Yep, as long as you have cash you can buy land, then knighthood is just a step away.

 

[Cirdan]

The English monarch certainly ended up effectively selling knighthoods to fund his wars. Pretty sure it was fairly common throughout Europe. In the English case it led to a new non-hereditary title.

On the other hand, you have kings who weren't knights themselves...when he was rattling sabres near Badajoz, the Portuguese king Fernando I was making knights when someone pointed out that, not being a knight himself, he was most definitely out of order. After having the noblest knight present (the Duke of Lanacaster) knight him, the king then went over the whole process of re-knight the knights he had previously made. By the end of the 15th century even the nobility wasn't bothering to get knighted, since it didn't mean much anymore.