Talk:Man-at-arms

Men-at-arms types
Should we indicate the types or general classificatiosn given to armsmen or should we make idependant articles for theses? For exemple the Coustillier/Coutilier, Halberdier, Voulgier, Guisarmier, Couleuvrinier and what-not? Judging from what little information is realy cracteristic of one of there "types" they should remain part of this article. Some like the Couleuvrinier are a bit harder to place.Dryzen 15:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC) This first part of this article contradicts the last part. The first used out of date Victorian definitions and the end used a more correct period concept but in a mudled way. To clarify a man-at-arms is: a knight, an esquire or any gentleman fully armed and mounted (though not always fighting mounted)inclusively.

Rather confused
As a point to all below- these discussions are exclusively, and somewhat confusingly, restricted to the later use of the term, when it had, undoubtedly, become a term exclusively for heavy cavalry equipped in a knightly manner. The idea that the term was interchangeable with 'miles' in the earlier 'chivalric' period has no supporting reference, and therefore throws the earlier use of the term (in the original French) back into play- the translations of the term are, at best unclear, and this article misleads entirely based on the later established use of the word. Indeed there is evidence that it was used as a generic term for well armed or equipped men in general and used relatively interchangeably with 'Serjeant'. It is important to note that if the term IS indeed synonymous with miles, then the term 'Miles Pedites' should be explored- as this is in use in documents from the 11th century, and suggests heavy infantry as well as heavy cavalry. Essentially, proving the singular firm use of term in the 16th century does not rule out a different use in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries, respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.185.135.202 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we have a confusion between military function and social status in the article. As far as I'm aware the term "man-at-arms" in late Medieval English meant "fully armoured cavalryman," it definitely did not denote a social grade. A prosperous yeoman, or merchant, or a mercenary of lowly origins could be a man-at-arms, as could an esquire (the rank below knight not squire). A knight was a knight even when asleep in his bed, as 'knight' was a social rank, but when he donned his armour and went to war he served as a man-at-arms.

The article as it stands is misleading.Urselius (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I am used to seeing men-at-arms used to describe what we would now call the infantry - ie not the cavalry or archers, and not gentlemen either. But professionals, with some armour & training, not feudal rabble. Whether this was the contemporary usage I'm not sure. I think the article is getting confused with the French gendarmes of the Renaissance. In fact the very brief French article is more correct.  Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the use of man-at-arms for an infantryman dates to misinformed usage in, dare I say it - American-based, role-playing and strategy games. It has spread from these origins to pervert the meaning in the English language generally.
 * Man-at-arms was a literal translation of the French gen-de-armes, the two terms are cognate. A man-at-arms was what would be termed in Medieval Latin miles ie. a fully armoured cavalryman. In Latin infantry were often disparigingly called pueri (boys) on the Continent. In English the infantryman was usually named for his weapon, for example billman, archer, spearman etc. Have a look at any muster record for the English army in the Late Middle Ages and you will find a gradation in pay and nomenclature and numbers.  In the company of any captain (ie. a man of any social degree contracted by the king to raise troops) the first to be mentioned are the men-at-arms, they were fewest in number and were the highest paid by a huge margin - these were the fully armoured cavalrymen (though they often fought in battle dismounted), then came the mounted archers (mounted on the march though they fought on foot), then the foot archer who was paid least and was the most numerous.  Also individuals are mentioned, usually of the esquire class, who are recorded as serving in person as a man-at-arms (often this was in a military emergency).  Esquires were men of substance, landowners and wealthy merchants, and of gentlemanly status.  Only later than the Hundred Years War are close-combat, non-archer, infantry mentioned very much and they are called simply "billmen."  The combination of man-at-arms, archer and billman was the standard English array until the reign of Henry VIII when pikemen, handgunners and demi-lancers (half-armoured heavy cavalry) were added. See for example Charles Oman, Medieval Warfare Vol. II - I could source and footnote the whole page - whether I want to do so is moot. Urselius (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Nobles, knights, and men-at-arms in the Middle Ages" By Maurice Hugh Keen p. 36 - I quote "Young men-at-arms who distinguish themselves in jousting deserve praise ..." I would submit that the men-at-arms referred to were mounted and were of gentlemanly status - infantry do not joust. "Knights and Warhorses: Military Service and the English Aristocracy Under ..." By Andrew Ayton p. 7 "...the association of warhorse and named man-at-arms, in order to determine what the equestrian descriptions and valuations can tell us about their aristocratic owners."  Warhorses are here directly linked to the term "man-at-arms" and to possible aristocratic status.Urselius (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article certainly should be referenced - I suspect doing so with modern sources would produce drastic changes. It is also totally vague as to dates using just "medieval" to cover a period that saw enormous changes. This is especially true for the remarks on social status.  The pictures are unhelpful - one shows the full plate armour of a great lord & the other a mixture of soldiers with a variety of weapons and only helmets and some mail, including archers. I don't believe the statements restricting the term to heavy cavalrymen. Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The two latter books I referenced above are modern, though Charles Oman wrote in the Edwardian period. The illustration of the foot combat is indeed unhelpful, it was in place when I first came to the article. You are at perfect liberty to disbelieve anything, however, I don't think you will find much in way of references in any reputable text, old or modern, to support your thesis that man-at-arms has the primary meaning of an infantryman.  The fact that English men-at-arms often fought on foot in open battle should not disguise the fact that they campaigned with a destrier warhorse (and palfrey etc.) for use when required.  Even during Henry Vs campaigns in France, famous for the English dismounting and repelling French cavalry, the English men-at-arms made a full scale cavalry charge during a clash at Bauge.Urselius (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would also point out that Henry VIIIs bodyguard of "knights" were called the "Gentlemen Pensioners." The fact that in modern eyes this brings up the image of a club for retired businessmen does not have any effect on the fact that Henry's pensioners were fully armoured heavy cavalry.  Similarly if the phrase 'man-at-arms' suggests a "bog-standard" infantryman to uninformed modern eyes this does not affect the fact that a Medieval man-at-arms was a fully armoured heavy cavalryman.Urselius (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary definition: man-at-arms, n.

Pronunciation: Brit. /ˌmanətˈɑːmz/, U.S. /ˈmænədˈɑrmz/ Inflections: Plural men-at-arms. Etymology: < man-of-arms n. with substitution of at prep.... (Show More)

'''A soldier, a warrior; spec. a heavily armed soldier on horseback.''' Also fig.

1561   T. Hoby tr. B. Castiglione Courtyer ii. sig. Miiiv,  A man at armes in fourm of a wield shepehearde. 1581   G. Pettie tr. S. Guazzo Ciuile Conuersat. (1586) iii. 161  Two brothers‥both men at armes [Fr. hommes d'armes (1580)], and in pay with the King. 1598   R. Barret Theorike & Pract. Mod. Warres v. 141  The Man at Armes is armed complete, with his cuyrasses of proofe [etc.]‥, well mounted vpon a strong & couragious horse. 1630   tr. G. Botero Relations Famous Kingdomes World 109  They are able to bring to the field 2000. men at Armes, and infinite troopes of light Horsemen. 1684   J. Bunyan Pilgrim's Progress 2nd Pt. 174   They so belabored him, being sturdy men at Arms, that they made him make a Retreat. 1739   D. Hume Treat. Human Nature I. Introd. 3  The victory is not gained by the men at arms, who manage the pike and the sword, but by the trumpeters, drummers, and musicians of the army. 1796   R. Southey Joan of Arc vi. 300  A man-at-arms upon a barded steed. 1815   Scott Lord of Isles vi. xii. 238  His men-at-arms bear mace and lance. 1874   W. Stubbs Constit. Hist. I. vii. 193  He was easily tempted to become a socager, paying rent or gavel, instead of a free‥man-at-arms.Urselius (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that none of these quotes are medieval. "fully-armoured" is especially likely to mislead, when we are showing it next to a full set of late plate armour that would have cost the price of 2 or 3 farms, or more, to make. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * First you want modern sources, now you want Medieval - Note the 1598 quote, made when England was still fielding fully armoured men-at-arms as heavy cavalry, it is a contemporary usage. You have produced nothing to back your argument, I have produced quite a large amount of referenced material in support of mine. I am not going to nit-pick over nuances of meaning, or whether or not I have material, from which to quote, written in every decade between 1066 and now.Urselius (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the article itself, the "medieval" man-at-arms had by then been "replaced". Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The operative word being 'gradually'. The Germans stopped fielding heavy lancers by about 1560, the French by 1580-90, the English had more demilancers than men-at-arms by the latter part of Henry VIIIs reign, but men-at-arms were fielded well into the 1590s in small numbers during the Dutch Wars. The last man known to have served in England armoured down to his toes was Colonel Popham in the English Civil War 1642-1651.Urselius (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've taken the tag off as the article has improved, though there are still issues. At least it's much better than knight, which looks worse than some years ago. I see there they say "The specific military sense of a knight being a mounted warrior in the heavy cavalry emerges only in the Hundred Years' War." The emphasis in this article is also almost entirely on the latter part of the Late medieval period and the Renaissance/16th century, & the hints I have introduced to say this should be expanded. The popular idea that "medieval"= 14th & 15th century is to be discouraged.  "Armoured" implies plate armour, which as I'm sure you know came pretty late.  There's a nice quote in some good source - I forget which - saying that in Northern Europe in the 11th century every time a band of soldiers won or stole an extra horse a new knight was created.  Thanks for being responsive anyway.  Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Knight is indeed poor. There is confusion between the English origin of the word knight and the Frankish origin of the high status armoured cavalryman.  Also the later mutation of the term to mean a social class and not just a man in armour on a horse confuses matters.Urselius (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

source
none of this page is sourced, who can get some sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.169.193 (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done - I hope to add more sources.Urselius (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"also called armsman or coistrel"
Given that neither of these terms is referred to again, let alone discussed, it seems to me that it is not instructive to present them in the subject heading.

I am not familiar with either term and it would be interesting to know more about them if they are indeed are significant alternatives for 'man-at-arms' (presumably in English usage only).

Is it possible they are orphans from early versions or have been inserted more recently without consideration of the main article (- which I find convincing and helpful, by the way)? JF42 (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are very old pieces of text, and I have never come across them as equivalents to a man-at-arms. Urselius (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any point in keeping them, then? Would you like to do the honours?JF42 (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. Urselius (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Timeframe of lead
The lead sentence says:

Man-at-arms was a term used from the High Medieval to Renaissance periods to describe a soldier, almost always a professional warrior in the sense of being well-trained in the use of arms, who served as a fully armoured heavy cavalryman.

It seems possible that the term "man-at-arms" was indeed used verbatim in the High Middle Ages in English, but don't we still use this term? The lead sentence doesn't help me know what the term currently means. I don't know anything about this topic, but I would suggest something like:

A man-at-arms was a soldier between the High Medieval to Renaissance periods who served as a fully armoured heavy cavalryman and was typically a professional soldier well trained in the use of arms.

HTH. --BLebow4500 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see the extensive discussion above. Due to widespread misuse in role-playing game literature, and other aspects of popular culture, an erroneous application of the term 'man-at-arms' to mean a 'basic low-grade soldier' has arisen. Also, some men-at-arms served out of feudal duty, they were not paid. They were, however, professional soldiers in the sense that one of their main functions in society was to fight; they were well trained for combat, they were not amateurs in the sense that a peasant given a spear and shield was. I take your point, however, that the man-at-arms was the soldier and not the 'term', and will amend the sentence. Urselius (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)