Were Men-At-Arms Knights?

The term man-at-arms gets thrown around often within the historical community. But what actually was a man-at-arms? And what roles were they expected to carry out? And of course, how did they differ from a knight? In today's video, we'll be briefly discussing the history of the man-at-arms, as well as discovering the origins of the name. To begin, an important thing to remember is that while all knights were man-at-arms, not all man-at-arms were knights. Knights held a social rank, and were typically a vassal in the service of a lord, baron, or directly to the king. They were usually powerful noblemen or landowners who were given honours of a knighthood and held the title knight. Therefore, a knight would be given special powers, a heightened status amongst his peers, and usually more land and men under his control. In return, the knight would pledge his life to his lord, serving in a personal retinue or household guard, and would be expected to risk their life in order to protect the realm. Knights typically became grounded in history after the 12th century, when the Norman nobles who assisted in the Battle of Hastings of 1066 had been granted ownership of lands in the newly conquered Kingdom of England by King William I. The Normans ushered in an age of feudalism, which was similar to the previous Anglo-Saxon method of rule, however much more structured with a firm backbone made up of government, devout vassals, and a strict enforcement of the law. Feudalism also paved the way for the origins of chivalry, the idea that a knight should be held to rules of engagement, fair game, and honour both on and off the battlefield. These knights of the gentry would be highly revered if their reputation of chivalry preceded them, and would typically be written into history books as great heroes and sometimes even compared to saints of their time. On the flip side, a knight known for his unchivalrous behaviour could be effectively snubbed by scholars and scribes who wrote about them in tomes and texts, which would make it into the pages of history for us to read hundreds of years later. As such, being a knight during the medieval period was similar to holding celebrity status, and every act you carried out would be judged by others, so it was in your best interest to stay on the good side of history and fulfil your duties of chivalry the best you could. Man-at-arms, however, did not necessarily need to abide by these rules. They were killers, warriors, cutthroats, butchers. The only real purpose of a man-at-arms was to be trusted to fight and defeat an enemy on a battlefield. They had no other official requirements. Of course, man-at-arms could always adhere to the knightly rules of chivalry in the hopes to be granted knighthood in their careers, but they were initially only responsible for turning up to the battlefield in good form and health, and be ready to carry out military tasks by their commanders. The derivation of the term man-at-arms is slightly different from country to country. The French typically referred to them as hommes d'armes or gens d'armes, whereas the English adopted the term man-at-arms while also referring to them as lances. And indeed, that seems to have been their primary role, a mounted unit equipped with a lance, often also more clad in armour than a typical soldier. By the 14th and 15th centuries, English men-at-arms were also foot soldiers, and made up the vast majority of the heavily armoured contingent of soldiers on a typical battlefield. Man-at-arms would be employed by a to join their retinue, similar to a small personal army of bodyguards, and would be tasked with fulfilling various combatant roles on the battlefield or on campaign. As such, men-at-arms could be normal working citizens from day to day, although usually of a higher social status, and be called up to don armour and ride out with their knightly master in times of warfare. But by the 15th century, it seems that most men-at-arms were career mercenaries, being bought into service by various noblemen across the country or even abroad, not having any particular binds of loyalty to any one specific member of the gentry. Throughout the English Middle Ages, some contemporary texts hint that men-at-arms were expected to own a bassinet and a spear or lance, along with mail covered by a quilted gambeson or jupon. Then, during the 14th century, suggestions or requirements of limb armour were added, such as an arm and leg harness. And by the 15th century, full plate seems to be expected for lancers, meaning that men-at-arms were essentially wearing the same configuration of protection as knights. It is around this time that we see a new term crop up, the demilancer. The demilancer seems to be a lighter variant of the lancer or man-at-arms. These were not men-at-arms themselves, but were instead likely an evolution of the hobbler, a lightly armoured mounted unit typically equipped with a helmet, lance and varying levels of body armour. Fully armoured 15th century men-at-arms would evidently be very expensive, so the demilancer was a cheaper alternative to bulk up an army and have a fast cavalry component to your ranks. Demilancers would also become known within medieval England and Burgundy as custoleers. So, in the 11th and 12th centuries, you typically had one type of mounted unit, the male-clad knight or milites nobilis. Of course, pardon my poor pronunciation of Latin, I am extremely English. And then, by the 15th century, you now had three formal types of melee cavalry, the heavily armoured knight, the heavily armoured lancer and the lightly armoured demilancer or custoleer. All three of these types of cavalry could hold the title of man-at-arms, but only one would hold the title of knight. They would also serve different roles on the battlefield. Man-at-arms were often used as shock cavalry, charging lance first into the enemy ranks in order to break up their lines and cause chaos and disorganisation to the opponent. They would usually be accompanied by the knights so that they can protect them if the knight got stuck in a dangerous area on the battlefield, fulfilling their bodyguard duties. The demilancers or custoleers would be used to harass the enemy, charging at lighter armoured troops such as archers, crossbowmen or artillery in the hopes to deny the enemy the usage of these soldiers. And then some higher ranking knights such as commanders or generals would be tasked with staying back, having a good overview of the battlefield as it unfolded, ordering scouts to send messages of new battle orders to the knights currently engaged with the enemy and reporting back to their senior commanders. By the 16th century, man-at-arms began to evolve into new unit types known generally as cuirassiers, although lancers still continued to be used right up to the 19th century. Cuirassiers were named due to the configuration of their armour, sometimes ditching the leg harness but keeping the cuirass, which was now made to be thicker, heavier and stronger to withstand musket fire. The folds or tassets would also be made wider to accommodate for the billowing breeches that were now the fashion of men in the 15 and 1600s, which would result in the permanent change of the classical knightly silhouette forevermore. Cuirassiers were typically kitted out with a burgeonette helmet, pistol or pistolette and a rapier or longsword. And then a lighter version of the cuirassier would be known as the haquebassier, which would now be leaning more into the 17th century with a lobster pot helmet, a gunfire resistant cuirass and equipped with a sword and pistolette. Lancers seemed to have evolved into another lighter variant, either ditching armour entirely in favour for a buff coat or with just a munitions grade breastplate and helmet. And so that is the brief history of the man-at-arms and how they differed from knights. Of course, when discussing the etymology of a historical term throughout 600 years of history, there will be many nuances and derivations of the word and its usage, including multiple contradictions and exceptions. So this short documentary simply serves to give a simple overview of the man-at-arms and their general role within medieval society, and more importantly, their role on the battlefield. So for now, thanks for watching.