Man-at-Arms vs Sergeant

[Archonsod]

As I seem to recall, the devaluation of Knighthood as a title had quite a lot to do with them becoming available to the highest bidder.

 

[tostig]

The English monarch certainly ended up effectively selling knighthoods to fund his wars.

They ended up fining people who had forgotten to buy knighthoods to fund wars. Given the rapid inflation, it meant that it was effectively a poll tax on the middle classes:

Distraint of Knighthood

 

[Cirdan]

Maybe in England. In France the devaluation of knighthood came about after the founding of of the Compagnies d'Ordonnance; since the highest-status soldiers were simply styled men-at-arms without a distinction between who had a knighthood and who didn't have one, knights not only had lost their distinctive role on the battlefield but they also lost the extra pay which they had been able to draw in the past.

 

[Spong]

"...the Cavalry consisted therefore of knights, sergeants and men-at-arms and it is as well at this point to define precisely what these terms mean. The nobles and knights were of various ranks, by which they may be positively identified: barons, earls, dukes and princes of the peerage; and knights bannaret, knights bachelor and simple knights. These men were the officers of the army, with the household knights and the poorer knights, who lacked a retinue, fighting in the ranks. They and their horses were heavily armoured. The sergeants were all those below the rank of a knight who had the equipment of a knight, or a lighter form of it. Their horses were smaller than those of the knights and were unarmoured. The term man-at-arms actually applies to all mounted fighting men who wore armour, but although a knight might therefore be called a man-at-arms, a man-at-arms was not necessarily a knight, being possibly a sergeant or squire. Thus the sergeants and squires, who normally fought in the ranks behind the first rank of knights and peers, formed the bulk - the rank and file - of the cavalry." - Terence Wise, Medieval Warfare (1976), Osprey Publishing pp 20-21.

"The terms sergeant should not be confused with sergeant-at-arms, a rank originally implying membership of a royal bodyguard, formed by Philip Augustus of France for the Third Crusade. Similar bodyguards were soon adopted by other European monarchs and, because of their proximity to the king in battle, they were frequently used to carry orders, or see that orders were being carried out. They were armed with a mace bearing the royal arms and this weapon came to be recognised as a symbol of royal authority." - Terence Wise, Medieval Warfare (1976), Osprey Publishing pp 4.

Its also worth mentioning that men-at-arms were not always deployed as cavalry even though they were a cavalry force, at Agincourt for example the men-at-arms dismounted and advanced on foot.

 

[Cirdan]

Some errors there...

"The terms sergeant should not be confused with sergeant-at-arms, a rank originally implying membership of a royal bodyguard, formed by Philip Augustus of France for the Third Crusade. Similar bodyguards were soon adopted by other European monarchs and, because of their proximity to the king in battle, they were frequently used to carry orders, or see that orders were being carried out. They were armed with a mace bearing the royal arms and this weapon came to be recognised as a symbol of royal authority." - Terence Wise, Medieval Warfare (1976), Osprey Publishing pp 4.

The French term was sergent du Roy, royal sergeant, and not sergeant-at-arms. Maces with fleur de lys engraved at the tip only made an appearance more than two centuries later, as ceremonial maces used as badges of office rather than as weapons.

"...the Cavalry consisted therefore of knights, sergeants and men-at-arms and it is as well at this point to define precisely what these terms mean. The nobles and knights were of various ranks, by which they may be positively identified: barons, earls, dukes and princes of the peerage; and knights bannaret, knights bachelor and simple knights. These men were the officers of the army, with the household knights and the poorer knights, who lacked a retinue, fighting in the ranks. They and their horses were heavily armoured. The sergeants were all those below the rank of a knight who had the equipment of a knight, or a lighter form of it. Their horses were smaller than those of the knights and were unarmoured. The term man-at-arms actually applies to all mounted fighting men who wore armour, but although a knight might therefore be called a man-at-arms, a man-at-arms was not necessarily a knight, being possibly a sergeant or squire. Thus the sergeants and squires, who normally fought in the ranks behind the first rank of knights and peers, formed the bulk - the rank and file - of the cavalry." - Terence Wise, Medieval Warfare (1976), Osprey Publishing pp 20-21.*

The distinction between between knights bachelor and 'simple knights' appears to have been invented by Terence Wise, unless it reflects some idisyncracy of England I've never yet come upon; certainly in the customs of France, of Hainaut, of the Lorraine, etc, there were only two ranks of knightood, the banneret who could march to war under his own banner, and the bachelor, who could not. The term "bachelor" itself is normally considered to have derived from bas chevalier, litterally "lower knight", although Loyseau emitted a dissenting opinion, deriving the term from bas eschelon, "lower echelon" or, if you prefer, "lower rank". Given the use of the term bachelor as an adjective, Loyseau's opinion carries some weight; but the frequency with which it is found as a substantive would be consistent with the more common etymology. Perhaps two roginally different terms evolved into the same word?

Beside that, he seems to brutally divide everything into nice little categories. The idea that you could consistently identify a man's equipment and battlefield role according to his rank or ttile is absurd; at Comines in 1382 you have a knight serving as a spy. Similarly his reserving of the term sergeant for those who foguth as men-at-arms is blatantly ignoring all the sergeants in communal militias, not to mention all the sergeants one would find off a battlefield...

But hey, that'ss Osprey for you. Nice pictures, but not necessarily good research.

 

[Spong]

Well the book is from the 70s so it probably is a little out of date/old fashioned. Its actually not typical of Osprey in that it is mostly text and not many pictures.

The book is a general overview of Europe but being an English author there is a certain leaning towards English examples, and certainly in England the term was sergeant-at-arms (they still exist and look similar to the Beefeaters), he simply refers to France as the origin of the bodyguard 'tradition'.

I'm not going to defend it too much, because I know it is just one book and not definitive, but I don't think there is that much wrong with the generalisations he makes, although you are indeed right to say that you could not consistently correlate rank to equipment and battlefield role, in general terms and in terms of what was likely most common he is probably not far out. A knight in the role of a spy is  most likely the exception rather than the norm. I'm not saying knights were not used as spies, I have no idea, but if you get a group of 60 knights together the likelihood is most of them will be heavily armoured cavalry and most are probably not spies.
There are other parts of the book that talk about sergeants outside of warfare but I did not see that as relevant to this topic seeing as we are talking about the distinction between troop types rather than roles in civilian life.

"Tenants holding less than a knight's fee were known as sergeants (servientes loricati or serjans a cheval) and these men were also called out in times of national emergency. Some sergeants had to carry a lord's banner in the field, or lead the local forces, but others were required to provide infantrymen, archers or crossbowmen, tenure by sergeantry apparently having variable value. Sergeantry did not exist in England, although the term was used for fighting men.
In the past there has been some confusion over the term sergeant. Until the late twelfth century the term meant only a foot soldier, but from then on it came to be used more and more to distinguish the mounted soldeers from those mounted men who belonged to the knightly class. Sergeants are described as taking part in cavalry actions with the knights and it must therefore be assumed that they were armed with a light lance, sword and shield but that they and their horses were less heavily armoured than the knights. The fact that they were lightly equipped does not mean that they were light cavalry in the modern sense, although they were used for reconnaissance and skirmishing, but only that they were not so well equipped as the wealthier knights."

just another excerpt, as I said its not definitive.

 

[Cirdan]

Okay, fair enough.

At Comines the knights all started out as heavily armed infantry, but when they realised that, in search of honour and glory, they had placed themselves on the other side of a river from their army, with no way to get back (having destroyed the ferries they had used to cross) and no way for reinforcements to reach them, and that there were only about four hundred of them against up to six thousand Flemings, they decided to use proper tactics and sent one of their number, who spoke Flemish, as a spy. They ended up winning, to.

On a battlefield, there'd have been loads of sergeants who weren't men-at-arms, though. I've aready mentioned the ones who'd form the backbones of communal militias, when peasant levies were being used lords also figured out that having a core of semi-professional troops to structure the levy--their servants or 'sergeants'--was pretty much a necessity, this useage of sergeants is what gives us the modern military rank. But up till the HYW most if not all non-noble men-at-arms would have qualified as sergeants, during the HYW you saw alot of common-born mercenaries equipped as men-at-arms popping up.

 

[Spong]

On a battlefield, there'd have been loads of sergeants who weren't men-at-arms, though. I've aready mentioned the ones who'd form the backbones of communal militias, when peasant levies were being used lords also figured out that having a core of semi-professional troops to structure the levy--their servants or 'sergeants'--was pretty much a necessity, this useage of sergeants is what gives us the modern military rank. But up till the HYW most if not all non-noble men-at-arms would have qualified as sergeants, during the HYW you saw alot of common-born mercenaries equipped as men-at-arms popping up.

Agree 100%.

I think perhaps the difficulty is that in that first excerpt I quoted he is talking specifically about the cavalry organisation, he doesn't really say at any point 'Sergeants were only cavalrymen and nothing else' he simply suggests that a substantial proportion of non-knightly heavy cavalry were sergeants and elsewhere he does clarify that Sergeants had other battlefield roles.

At the very least it seems that broadly speaking men-at-arms was a catch-all term for soldier who were well equipped heavy cavalry (though they could fight on foot) while sergeant seems to be a term for fighting men (mounted or on foot) who were not of the knightly class but were still professional soldiers and thus often relatively well-equipped.

 

[Cirdan]

Agree 100%.

I think perhaps the difficulty is that in that first excerpt I quoted he is talking specifically about the cavalry organisation, he doesn't really say at any point 'Sergeants were only cavalrymen and nothing else' he simply suggests that a substantial proportion of non-knightly heavy cavalry were sergeants and elsewhere he does clarify that Sergeants had other battlefield roles.

That's the difficulty of only quoting excerpts, the audience can easily take them out of context

At the very least it seems that broadly speaking men-at-arms was a catch-all term for soldier who were well equipped heavy cavalry (though they could fight on foot) while sergeant seems to be a term for fighting men (mounted or on foot) who were not of the knightly class but were still professional soldiers and thus often relatively well-equipped.

To be honest I'd say they weren't usually fully professional. Semi-pro (a.k.a. well-trained reservists) would be more standard.

 

[Archonsod]

The distinction between between knights bachelor and 'simple knights' appears to have been invented by Terence Wise, unless it reflects some idisyncracy of England I've never yet come upon;

Idiosyncrasy, though he has them the wrong way around. Baronets would be the highest rank of knighthood, being a hereditary title and also technically a peerage. 'Simple' knights would be next, since it usually refers to those with a full knighthood. Bachelor knights would be the lowest rank, since the title confers no further honour or membership of any chivalric order, and in most cases wouldn't be hereditary.

he simply suggests that a substantial proportion of non-knightly heavy cavalry were sergeants and elsewhere he does clarify that Sergeants had other battlefield roles.

It would be normal. Most knights would be riding to battle with their own men around them in the form of squires, retainers and the like.