Medieval warfare and knights?

Question

Was a lord's army composed only of knights, or also common soldiers? Where would he have gotten the other soldiers? If the process to become a knight was so difficult, how could there possibly have been enough knights to fight in an army for the king?

Also, did knights live in their lord's estate/castle, or did they live in separate houses?

Answer 1

JJ is not completely right.



Not all knights were land owners. Some were not rich enough to buy their own armour and horse. Of course some knights were land owners but no all of them, many of them were not.



A knight not wealthy enough to own land or even a house/mansion had no choice but to put himself into the service of someone else, as a bodyguard or a trainer for example. It could be the service of a lord or a wealthy merchant for example.



Armies were not entirely made of knights. The battle of Crecy for example gathered for than 2,000 knights on one side, not a even close to the half of the army., When entering a state a war, a knight called his vassals ( lords under him ) to raise the army. The army was mainly peasants or/and artisans, given weapons ( all kind, from rusty swords to chunk of woods ) and very quickly ( or not at all ) drilled. These men were not always paid but given the freedom of loot if they survived. They were the main force of an army. If they survived, they would go home after the war with what loot they could have gathered, until the next war.



COntrary to some nations of the antiquity, most nations/kingdoms,...Etc had not professional armies. They just were men gathered in time of wars.



As centuries passed and knighthood evolved, it became easier ( for nobles and wealthy people ) to be a knight. The virtues attributed to them changed, some people went to buy knighthood ( rarely officially of course ). This is why the purpose and role played by knights also evolved, from the virtue to protect the weak and poor, many knights were just knights to seek personal glory and wealth ( not always of course ).



Seeing 2,000 knights in one army was rare but it happened. I can't tell for sure what is the record of knights present in one battle ( these kind of documents were not kept back then, only the most famous knights or knights from famous families were really recorded, or those who made great deeds. Many knights are forgotten from all documents and will never be known to us ).



So no not all knights were land owners. As I said, many had no other choice to put themselves into the service of someone else since they could not even afford an armour ( a complete set of heavy armour costed a fortune for the time, since they had to be made for your body ). This is why for example many saw the crusades as an opportunity of wealth or many gathered into errant knights, often becoming brigands and bandits for examples.



In feudal society, the King was indeed ( as JJ said ) the man with the largest army because his vassals had the duty to provide him money and men in times of war ( in exchange for example of protection ). Lords though ( counts, dukes, barons among others ) had the right most of the time to raise their own armies to fight or protect themselves from a neighbour for example. ).



With time going on and pure feudalism dying to let the place to state ( it started in the Renaissance for many countries ). Many nobles lost their power which went to the King or Queen ( more and more closer to the absolute monarchy ) and when war was coming, they raised men with conscription, massive conscription of men from a certain age and often randomly designated in villages and towns ( like a lottery pretty much, you were attributed a number for example and your number was chosen so you had to go ). It looked more and more like a national levy of men. Military service also started to appear in some countries ( Kingdoms, Republics, large independant Dukedoms,...Etc ).



But during the Middle-Ages, men were just raised most of them among the peasantry. It was a duty you had towards your overlord in exchange of protection. You were rarely paid and taxes for your family were raised ( during wars, the taxes are almost always raised because it is expensive to create an army, a lord may have had to hire mercenaries, provide food to the army, pay for ransom and alliances,...Etc ) but you were mostly free to loot. With a bit of luck, you could be knighted ( this war rare for a peasant or simple low man but it happened ) but you will be an example of a poor knight because you were a low-born man.

Answer 2

Most nights owned a castle or fortress. In exchange for the safety of this castle farmers payed tax in the form of goods and military duty.



There were no Professional armies in medieval Europe. The king borrowed troops from the knights.



Knights rarely fought themselves and if they did the would wear lots of body armor, ride on a horse and had lots of soldiers around them.



it was not difficult to become a knight because you Simply can't become a knight. To be a knight you had to have noble blood so a peasant never would become a knight.



Knights always had a castle thry inherit from their father.

Answer 3

A lord would have vassals, mostly landed knights, who owed him fealty. The lord would call on these vassals to provide him with troops. This would be in addition to his own direct forces. Both his and the vassals would have one or more landless knights in their entourage, and would call upon their commoners to provide most of the infantry. This infantry would be largely untrained, and only under obligation to fight for 2 months.

There were also professional troops. Most of these would be specialists, such as archers. They would have more training and discipline than the average peasant fighter. Most of these men were mercenaries, signing up for specific campaigns. We have actual lists showing the names and pay of these kinds of men from the battle of Agincourt.

While most knights were hereditary, good fighting men might be raised to knighthood for services. And each lord or king fostered many children of other nobles or knights, thus providing a pool of potential knights. The real difficulty in being a knight was the cost. A good war horse, armor, and weapons were extremely expensive. If defeated in tournament or combat, a knight would forfeit all of those, or have to pay a ransom to get them back. So knights spent a lot of time trying to come up with ways to make money and maintain their status. This was done largely by fighting when they could.

Most knights were actually landless, and lived in on the estates or castles of their lords. A small percentage of knights were landed. That is, they were given land, from which they could draw revenues in the form of taxes. Such lands also meant they were required to provide troops to battle. In the case of a landed knight, this would probably be a small number of foot troops, and perhaps a squire or two. The higher the rank of nobility, the more men under control.

Answer 4

Ok here is how it worked.



The king had no real army of his own. What happened was he relied on his aristocracy or nobility to provide soldiers. The nobility were large landowners, who employed peasants or the ordinary people to work on their large estates or manors. The peasants were largely tied to the land and had to work the land. They were allowed to live there and had their own produce



During times of war, the nobility supported the king and would call on the peasants who worked their land to join their army. So the more support the king had from the nobility, he could be guaranteed would support him during times of crisis.



The nobility often supported the king because they would share in the spoils of war - often receiving more money or land for their support.



A king could also be guaranteed the support of the Catholic Church - the local bishops and Archbishops - who were large landowners where the local church / monastery had surrounding lands worked by the peasants and the local priest encouraged support for the king in times of crisis.

Answer 5

The original feudal model was that the nobility held land off the king in return for military service. The larger your land-holding the more troops you had to provide. Great lords subdivided their territories down to the holder of a manor, which would be sufficient to support a knight. A knight would usually come along with a squire and about five foot soldiers from among his personal household depending on his wealth. Service was limited to a number of days per year, 40 in England. Given the almost perpetual warfare of the Medieval Period almost everyone in the nobility was trained in military arts, and many of the foot soldiers were veterans of several actions. There were laws insisting young men learned archery.

From the very beginning there were professional soldiers especially in the immediate entourage of a great lord or king. Often these were also important political figures, like Charlemagne's Paladins of the Court, or William, the Marshal, Ist Earl of Pembroke, who served under four kings and as Regent. He was a formidable warrior, general and politician. By the 12th century kings were beginning to prefer payment in cash to hire mercenaries, who could not go home when their period of engagement was served. Many of the wars in Italy were almost entirely fought by various mercenary corps hired by the French king, Holy Roman Emperor and the various city states, and liable to change sides as often as modern footballers.

Where people lived was important. Smaller land-owners often had to take a close personal interest in their estates, but factors, known as reeves or grieves in English, often actually ran them. Some knights disappeared for years on Crusade. Every landowner had their own home, even if it was only a draughty keep in a remote border valley. Knights or soldiers without land might live with their lords, many old castles still show signs of the booths built against the walls and some castles had entire buildings within the bailey as can be seen at Windsor castle today, or they might stay with family ( the professional knights were often landless younger sons) or in lodgings (under a hedge) until recruited.

Kings liked to have reliable men to govern the local areas, but a powerful local lord and his extended family could be a threat. William I had split land-holdings up across England, but marriages tended to consolidate them. Kings often liked to have powerful lords at court where they could keep an eye on them, and where they jostled for the King's favour. Equally powerful local magnates had minor lords dance attendance on them, and their sons and daughters would be placed with them to learn courtly ways in service, this fostered loyalties as well as building networks, but implicitly acted as a way of holding them hostage for their father's conduct; some kings insisted on powerful lords sending their heirs whenever they would be absent from Court.

Answer 6

An army would mainly consist of men-at-arms, a knight (equipped for war) could be a man-at-arms, but not all men-at-arms were knights. They were professional fighters.

Answer 7

Knights were effectively land owners whom brought with them fighters which lived on their land. People who lived on the Kings land were conscripted. The King was effectively the knight with the largest patch of land, and there by the largest indigenous army.

Answer 8

Lords purchased commissions to assemble armies. Knights served largely as Officers and Shock-Troopers.



The majority of their army composed of Enlisted Peasants and other such folk.

Answer 9

http://library.thinkquest.org/10949/fief/medknight.html