what support accompanied a knight?

what support accompanied a knight?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    prostitutes

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Some armies assigned a "Sergeant of prostitutes" to keep the camp followers in line
      Imagine being that guy

      the barest minimum attested in records is I think two bowmen or spearmen, almost certainly accompanied by a servant and/or washerwoman off the books

      In The Cantebury Tales the Knight is accompanied by a Squire and Bowman (and the Squire is his son)

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Imagine being that guy
        In a time before even basic antibiotics? Not something I'd care to.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I was looking at Juliet Barker's research of Henry V's Agincourt campaign, possibly the most intact (least destroyed) documentation of a medieval battle today. The smallest retinue was one man-at-arms and two archers. Camp followers such as a stableboy and washerwoman were not documented, because Henry only paid for the services of the three soldiers.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > Some armies assigned a "Sergeant of prostitutes" to keep the camp followers in line
        Grandpa fought in the Algerian war
        There was a brothel inside the base and he was assigned to guard it semi regularly
        It was apparently not great

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          qrd?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Girls fought all the time, he kinda took orders from a pimp which he hated, and he saw many men waste a lot of money after "falling in love" with prostitutes who didn't care about them at all

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              sounds familiar

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                literally a tale as old as time

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          qrd?

          the famous bordel militaire de campagne, the only based French military invention

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the barest minimum attested in records is I think two bowmen or spearmen, almost certainly accompanied by a servant and/or washerwoman off the books

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So, did the bowmen and spearmen from a hundred different knightly lances just know how to bunch together into formation with one another while their COs formed into their own mass that was also the chief shock unit of the army?
      Sounds unwieldy.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >just know how to bunch together into formation with one another while their COs formed into their own mass that was also the chief shock unit of the army?
        IINM they were typically formed into groups of roughly 20+ men when assembling before campaign and before battle, and these groups could be grouped into groups of 100+ i.e. 3 or 4 such groups, but there was no more structured subdivision after that.
        This is reflected in the Agincourt mustering records, which often put unrelated small numbers of men together in 20-ish groups.

        >Sounds unwieldy
        That's why ancient and medieval armies are far removed from 20th century or even Napoleonic armies in combat organisation. And that's why ancient and medieval battles would be considered highly undisciplined and quite a melee compared to today.

        The British and French at Agincourt, for example, were formed into 3 and 4 groups each. The British which were roughly 6,000 men therefore had roughly 2,000 men per group. The French on the other hand had at least 20,000 men, or 5,000 per group. This meant the French had a very unwieldy chain of command; however they were organised, the French group commander had a span of control nearly 3 times the size of his opposing number. And that contributed greatly to the defeat in detail that happened in that battle. For example, when the battle began, many French knights were apparently still getting ready.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >For example, when the battle began, many French knights were apparently still getting ready.
          The crossbowmen arrived at the head of collumn, while their large pavois shields were at the back in the baggage train

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That was Crecy, at Agincourt the common infantry didn't even get a chance to join the battle

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >look at that moron

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    his khomies

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >his khomies

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Personal femboy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its a Knight, not a Samurai or Spartan.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Did Roman legions have camp thinks?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, they brought porn around with them.
          Which was very weird for their time and they got mocked for it constantly.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Truly, the legions were ahead of their time.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's my understanding that, no. Most Greeks and Romans were straight, and the idea of a 'camp prostitute' is mostly a myth. While there might be local prostitutes the soldiers would see on leave, they didn't actually follow about the militaries. It's not like they were government employees. Some camp followers would be known in the form of sutlers with the development of railroads, but overall that was also sporatic.

          Its a Knight, not a Samurai or Spartan.

          Okay. Squirewench then.
          Knights were just as fruity as the priests and princes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I need a cute twink squire to kiss and feel

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Knights were just as fruity as the priests and princes.
            Please don't spread misinfo in genuinely interesting and informative threads thanks

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Did Roman legions have camp [twinks]?
          homosexual sex was a capitol offense in Rome, both for the receiver and the giver

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Unless you're an emperor, in which case you can diddle kids and get away with it and apparently even become an LGBTBBQ champion in modern times.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lol no it wasn't. There was no law against it until Justinian, squarely in the Christian era.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Will you be my personal femboy?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Will you be mine? We can match outfits

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, sounds nice.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_fournie

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It varied greatly over the period in which knights were dominant. Pic related is a really great book on the period of the "Great Companies," that covers force composition, logistics, and tactics. Forces and equipment were not at all standardized. Lance + sword were very common for a great deal of the middle ages but axes and maces always got used, and it was partly availability and personal preference. As armor got better and shields could be forgone you got bigger swords and more polearms. Prior to that, axes were often one handed. Various hammers and axe-like weapons were big during the period where plate became fairly ubiquitous (it would become a rarity reserved for elites in the early modern period as firearms began to dominate more, but you do have a period where knights and men at arms are using plate.

    Primitive firearms, cannons, slings, bows, and crossbows also existed side by side for a long period. The first cannons were used in Italy in the 1200s and were a major part of warfare at the height of the mercenary companies (which is also the height of plate armor in terms of frequency, roughly speaking).

    The book talks about two men to a "knight" being common for a period, but this varied, and doesn't include all the support staff who were shared and did stuff like cook, laundry, repairs, etc. Although it also mentions a common pairing of one "knight" and one squire as fighting on foot with two men holding a lance became more common as a way to frustrate cavalry charges (early foreshadowing of the return of the like). But attrition and desertion played havoc with these ratios.

    Squires serving specific knights needs for the most part, without as much centralization of certain functions is more common to an earlier period, think the early Crusades. Mercenaries were also much less dominant in this period from what I understand.

    Around the first Crusade might be the peak of what is often thought of as the honor based knight-squire relation.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And the knight to lord honor based relationship. Feudalism and chivalry morphed over the years and was in a sort of "decline" even before firearms shifted army composition decisively away from knights.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        One way to think of it is that the society of the First Crusade was still very much dominated by what were essentially warlords and the old tribal structures of the "dark ages" still had decent presence in how feality and armies got organized. IIRC, Boehmond's grandfather was part of the Norman conquests in Italy; they weren't that far distant.

        Fighting very slowly became less and less a caste and way of life and more a profession.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Prior to that, axes were often one handed
      The Viking/Danish/English Axe was two-handed

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Squire, retainers/Sargeants at arms, servants.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >A knight
    When?
    Where?
    How poor/rich is he?
    What's his status?
    Where's he going?
    Is his realm at war?
    That's such a vague and unanswerable question, you could have a Duke who is a knight who is accompanied but hundreds/thousands, you could have a baron and his retainers, you could have one poor bastard roaming the lands looking for a lord to enter his service, the knight title could mean a lot of things, or it could mean very little

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Between the extremes. Not a Duke, and not some impoverished knight. Just an unremarkable middle class knight. What would his retinue be?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        3 guys.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Just an unremarkable middle class knight
        when you say "middle class" do you mean the statistically average knight, or do you mean one who would be roughly halfway up the social ladder? because the latter is not statistically average

        the majority consisted of 1 man-at-arms, 2 or 3 archers, and 1 or 2 servants who were not considered paid soldiers

        the social "middle class" would be about 5 men-at-arms and 15 archers. this "middle class" would actually be mayors of large towns in England. so they're "middle" in the sense that they're halfway between the above vs. dukes and earls, but far from the numerical average.

        for comparison, the retinues of Henry V's dukes ranged from 50-100 men-at-arms and 150-300 archers.

        Girls fought all the time, he kinda took orders from a pimp which he hated, and he saw many men waste a lot of money after "falling in love" with prostitutes who didn't care about them at all

        >he saw many men waste a lot of money after "falling in love" with prostitutes who didn't care about them at all
        objectively speaking, that means those prostitutes were delivering good service, at least while the clock was running

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How expensive was a man at arms and what would his skill level be? Would he be someone at the same martial ability as a knight and were they equipped well?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            all knights were men at arms but not all men at arms were knights, it was a title specifically given out
            some people tried to avoid it because of its military service and tax requirements
            a man at arms could be from nearly any background and have a variety of other titles
            (but probably not too high up or wealthy or they wouldn't need to be fighting for coin)

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >asking if middle means average
          neckbeard

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            go back to school

            How expensive was a man at arms and what would his skill level be? Would he be someone at the same martial ability as a knight and were they equipped well?

            >Would he be someone at the same martial ability as a knight and were they equipped well?
            roughly, yes and yes

            man-at-arms is a late medieval term that came about because unknighted non-noble freedmen could also afford knightly armour and weapons, so the term encompasses both them and knights for ease of reference for military purposes

            >How expensive
            a full suit of average armour at this time cost about £9 to £20, and the average warhorse £25. for comparison, in 15th century England a knight's annual income was reckoned to be around £40, roughly seven times a skilled craftsman's

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You're not getting it
        Where is he? How is he 'middle class' because that has little to do with his wealth or holdings
        You could consider a landless retainer middle class
        Even the title itself is vague and effectively means very different things depending on time and place

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >you could have one poor bastard roaming the lands looking for a lord to enter his service

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *