"Medieval Sergeants and Knights" Topic

What exactly was the difference between those two? Is there any contemporary evidence that the sergeants would be poorer equipped and outfitted than the Knights?

I think there is evidence in documents and images from a pretty wide variety of sources that indicates a difference in armour and probably in horseflesh ridden (where Sergeants were mounted) but less so in armament.

In the late 11th & early 12th centuries is where you might find them the closest. More because of ill equipped poor knights than well equipped sergeants.

It is more of a social standing distinction than a military one. That said, your average knight was probably better equipped than your average sergeant.

Bear in mind that most retinues would include both knights and sergeants. In terms of battlefield units most if not all 'feudal' units would comprise a mix of both, rather than the usual division that you often see.
Mercenaries and other 'professionals' such as the Military Orders would be a different case.

In the 11th century and prior, there was no such thing as a "knight". An armed (usually mounted) man was called a "miles". All he needed by the last half of the 11th century were the arms and horse to be a "miles". Birth had little to do with it, yet. By the 1st Crusade, you had a division between the richer, better equipped miles and the miles of the second rank, as it were. This was, as already pointed out, a difference in arms and quality of mount. A fully trained "destrier" was expensive. Any tractable mount would serve to form the second rank. A miles in full mail on a properly trained destrier would be the equal of any lord similarly mounted and armed. Social standing was based on titles and land. And most miles had nothing at all or nothing more than a simple manor or motte and bailey castle. The greatest majority of miles served as landless men in the households of landed men.

By the early 12th century, "sergeants" are showing up in the texts. These would have earlier been poorer miles. There is an anecdote from the first decade of the kingdom of Jerusalem, where knights and sergeants from the city mustered to ride to the relief of Jaffa (iirc). The narrative states that the knights, being better armed, fought their way through and entered the town through the gate. But the sergeants, being lighter armed, abandoned their horses and swam around to the harbor and were admitted into the town that way.

The Military Orders definitely made distinctions between brother knights and brother sergeants. I believe it is a universal characteristic of all the Orders that sergeants are specified with less full equipment. I don't recall what the distinction, if any was regarding horses. Sergeants wore a distinctive gown, cappa clausa or surcoat from that of the knights. The sergeants formed the second rank. If there is a case where they were organized in separate companies, tactically from knights, I am not remembering one.

By Bouvines, sergeants in the French army are seen mustered separately from the knights. At least on that occasion.

The term 'sergeants' had a wide variety of applications and varied a good deal by time and place, so a 'sergeant at arms' in the early 1300s might be a knight with command responsibilities, but a 'sergeant' might be a sort of local policeman. By the 14th C. a more useful term is 'men-at-arms' meaning everyone who served as an armoured cavalry man – though they might dismount to fight.

Thanks guys. Do we have any other information about the equipment and fighting role of english and french sergeants during the 12th and 13th centuries? Also, were they still appearing as a separate class of man-at arms during the 1300s?

This from the "Chronicles of Hainault", referring to 1187, is interesting:

"The count of Hainaut came at his own expense to the king of France's aid with 110 chosen knights and eighty mounted sergeants with chain mail … the count of Hainaut's men were handsome to see, because all his men, with the sole exception of the most virtuous knight Baldwin (namely of Strιpy), had horses equipped with iron armour. Among the sergeants, many were armed as knights and had horses covered with iron."

At Bouvines, if I recall correctly, the French had sergeants operating independently and they charged some knights from Ferrand of Portugal's command. The knights were offended that lesser men had charged them and almost tried to no fight them and at least did not countercharge into them as they would have enemy knights. This case shows that they fought separately at times and that they were certainly still not regarded as equals in the early 13th century.

Yes, Rampantlion, that is the incident I recall.

Sergeants are the early form of "ignoble" cavalry. The trend toward ignoble cavalrymen increased as the middle ages proceeded. "Men-at-arms" as a later term inclusive of noble and ignoble cavalrymen was predominantly ignoble, commanded by knights and greater nobility. Knights became a kind of officer class.

The entire mystique of knighthood was simple snobbery. A commoner who was richer than a nobleman could afford better arms, and would look more "noble" on the battlefield. But a sergeant, yeoman or similar lower "gentry" were increasingly unlikely to be knighted, because knights and upward were attempting to establish and maintain an elite, or closed, social class. Snobbery.

And nothing has changed in all the following years. Gentry are "better" than commoners, and associate with each other as a social club. Those admitted to that "club" are recognized as "worthy" of the distinction. Here in the USA, we're supposed to look down on those who accept titles of nobility. So reverse snobbery (of sour grapes) rules over here.

I doubt that human behavior was any different as we look at social classes in the middle ages….

By the 1290s (in England anyway) they're just men-at-arms for combat purposes (though not individuals named as a 'sergeant at arms') however they're not on a social par with knights, but do bear in mind that only a small minority of men-at-arms were actually knights. Have a look at pay rolls and Restauro from CDS, Ayton's 'Knights and their Warhorses' for England and Brown (ahem) 'Knights of the Scottish Wars of Independence' and 'Bannockburn 1314' for Scotland and for English forces operating in Scotland….also Anne Curry and Anne Hyland. Offhand I dunno who you'd refer to for France or Spain or the Low Countries, but I'll give it some thought and post again if I come up with anything.
Just to complicate the knighthood issue a bit further..by the mid 1300s – if not before – men of suitable rank and status were already trying to avoid being made knights to get out of irksome social responsibilities like suit of court..also…well before 1300 the term 'miles' specifically meant a knight, not just any old man-at-arms

You really don't understand the feudal system Great War Ace – it was a LOT more complicated than that. It also varied considerably with both time and place.

The short version is yes, at certain times and in certain regions there was an equipment distinction between the two; but as everyone else had pointed out the where and when gets very complicated very quickly!

-Will

Thank you, guys! Does anyone knows if the Sergeants were still being called as such during the 1300s?

Well…as above; the term was still in use but it could mean any number of things…like 'officer' nowadays. What sort of officer? Police officer, sanitation officer, Petty Officer, General Officer, truant officer…..

I think that terminology is a big problem in any dealings with medieval questions and any attempt to answer them can get just as snarled up – however good the intentions of both parties.

Before the days when vernacular language (English, French, German etc) was the common form of written record most was in Latin. This means that a vast quantity of documentary evidence has already been translated at least once by the time it reaches us, often many times. Some of those translations may well be done by someone with little or no knowledge of the subtle differences between possible translations of a specific word.

An 8th century clerk might record a force as having so many 'miles' (meaning no more than 'soldiers') but his 12th century counterpart may only be referring to the mounted and armoured part of the army because the usage of 'miles' had changed.

Similarly 'knechte' is old German for a male servant (a not dissimilar meaning is also proposed for sergeant) and doesn't have its later, military, meaning until much later – 'Ritter' being a common word in early German sources.

If we say that, in this instance, we have a 'better' sort of armoured mounted soldier and a 'not so good' sort that were (most of the time, but not always) different in their armour and the quality of their horses (and sometimes even their weapons) and, for most of the period, there would also be a difference in social status between them – we cover most of the angles.

The problem is that it still doesn't really answer the question – you'd probably need a small book to do that in full.

You really don't understand the feudal system Great War Ace – it was a LOT more complicated than that. It also varied considerably with both time and place.

This is about the "feudal system"? Don't you mean "systems"? There was no "feudal system" as such, not even in just England. There were feudal elements to the way troops were raised. As a recruiting system or mechanism it was undergoing constant alteration, for the very reason that you point out: it was complicated. Those serving wanted to reduce their obligations and those receiving the service wanted to increased them, for one thing.

Perhaps you think I emphasized the snobbery involved. But the cost and obligations of knighthood were reserved to those that could afford it. "Poor knights" were oxymoronic. They could not measure up to the social demands. Those landed men who barely made a go of it economically would seldom seek to obtain a social ranking that they knew they could not keep up: Thus the much larger numbers of sergeants and later men-at-arms, compared to actual knights….

GWA/Gildas, you both raise valid points, but we might be better to avoid the concept of 'systems' at all – and maybe the expression 'feudal' as well. Land tenures with military obligation were (largely, but not inevitably, heritable) contracts between greater and lesser landholders. The grantor might or might not be the king, the grantee might or might not be a knight, but each contract is a 'stand alone' item. Two neighbours (or at different ends of the country) might have properties of identical value, but have radically different obligations, often dependent on the relationship between the original parties to the contract. 'Fred' holds his property for 1 penny a year (or perhaps a pound of Cumin or a single rose at midsummer) while neighbour 'Joe' holds his for the service of a knight (really a man -at-arms, he might or might not be n actual knight)or for a fraction – the service of half a knight/quarter of a knight..even a twentieth of a knight. He might also have a raft of other burdens – suit of court, castle-guard, money and/or produce.
Knight (man-at-arms) service was , among other things, a hedge against inflation for the grantor. As knight service became a greater financial burden through the 13/14th C, (higher expectations about horseflesh and equipment)the quantity of service required remained the same.
Gildas is quite right about the use of terms by clerical chroniclers in the early medieval period, but by the later 13th C. – if not before – 'miles' no longer meant a soldier per se; it specifically meant a knight, however no more was expected of the knight than of his colleague who simply owed – or was employed to perform – knight service.
The knight was not necessarily better off economically than other men-at-arms. He got paid 24d rather than 12d per day (so long as they had the necessary qualification of suitable arms and barded charger – very few paid for an actual destrier) and enjoyed a certain social benefit that we cannot adequately define, but he might have very little more than his wages – not all knights were even landholders at all – whereas his colleague might have a tasty income from land. In England and Scotland (and I would have thought elsewhere too) this became more evident as wealthier members of the burgess class and rural entrepreneurs encouraged their sons to give 'knight service' without a formal obligation to do so. It was a route to social advancement..much as 'trade' families in the 18/19th centuries bought commissions for their sons.
'Feudal' is a dodgy term at the best of times, but even so, is generally only applicable to knight service. The infantry – by and large – were recruited/conscripted by county sheriffs and town councils on the basis of instructions from the crown. Just to make things even less straightforward, we might find that a institution – Abbey, Monastery, Convent or even town was obliged to provide a number of men-at-arms.
It would be unsafe to assume that there was always a great social value to knighthood; from Henry IIIs time (if not before) the crown had to issue writs demanding that all those who ought to be knights must arrange to become knighted. Some undoubtedly avoided doing so for economic reasons and some to avoid the other burdens – suit of court, suit of hunt – but undoubtedly some just could n't be bothered and could n't see any personal advantage.
Finally, as well as being wary of clerical interpretations and translations, we should be very wary indeed of applying what we (at least think) we see in the practices of Outremer to the rest of Christendom. This is especially true of post-1066 England, which did not have the pattern of comital regional power that would be the case in France, Scotland, Low countries etc.