I was wondering what is the significanse of knights in medieval society or military?
Printable View
I was wondering what is the significanse of knights in medieval society or military?
Wow, that is a huge question!!!:laugh4: Too large for a quick answer really, you may wish to pick up a book or two on medieval society. Their role changed and evolved with time from the late Roman empire right up to the Renaissance. They could soldiers, governors, policemen, bodyguards, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal99
A short answer to the best of my ability:
In feudal society the knights were the landed nobles whom the lord or king supported in exchange for undying loyalty and military service in war. They were the rich land-owners who lorded over the serfs and kept the country working at the fundamental level. In battle, they could afford the best equipment: armour, weapons, and a horse (in Medieval Europe the upper class always fought on horseback), and they were hailed generally as the most important soldiers on the field (even when new technologies were rendering them obsolete). In war they were eventually phased out of the picture by the increasing efficiency of gunpowder weapons. In European society landed gentry remained a tangible concept until at least the early 20th century, when immense social upheavals (in some cases linked to the World Wars) finished it off for good. In Great Britain today (one of the only kingdoms still left over from the Medieval period) there are still knights, but they are given the title for reasons other than hereditary control over land.
This is obviously a very, very short answer to your question, but it should give you some idea.
Perplexed's answer is fairly complete, although I would have to add that knights in Great Britain lost their military importance before the rest of Europe, during the Middle Ages. Instead of serving in battle, each knight (in this case, a landed noble) was required to pay a certain amount of money (called scutage, this later became a regular tax) to maintain the state's mercenary army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perplexed
Knights, or rather, nobility (the two can be equated in earlier periods), emerged in the Dark Ages proper. The Roman version was simply a strata of society, fairly wealthy (but not required to serve in the army), a nobilty of sorts (during most of the Empire, they were, in fact not, the Romans had nobility only during the early Republic and the late Empire). The Dark Age version evolved from Frankish traditions, of a tribal chieftain's personal soldiers. Over time, they managed to gain land, as well as titles (the two were not connected until the 8th century), and ensure that the land could be inherited (this was also not a common fact, again, until the 8th century).
Also, some knights were lesser nobles, without land. These were fairly common in England, as each landed noble had to maintain a number of knights of his own. This was also a tradition in the Frankish state, so I assume it was also used in the other countries of the Medieval period.
The military usefulness of knights is debatable. They were hotheaded and tended to make foolish charges solely for glory, however, their equipment allowed them to actually survive.
Also, note that the knight in the sense I described above can only be used for the European form, and especially the Western European form, as Byzantines and non-Christians did not use such a system.
Just adding a historical perspective on their development.
Debatable as it was, the society of the times pretty much required that the mounted knight be given the most important role in battle. Through much of the Medieval age it was thought almost impossible for an infantryman to defeat an armoured cavalryman, even when multiple incidents proved them wrong (Bannockburn, Crecy, even Tours, although that was against Muslim heavy cavalry).Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
On the other hand, the knight as definitively an armoured cavalryman was created as a result of the Carolingian system put in place by the 8th century Frankish king Pepin the Short (although Charles Martel had a hand in creating the foundations of the system). It's generally agreed that most traditions of Medieval European warfare stem from the Carolingian military system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
I'm wondering if these two facets of knighthood, as you point out as having emerged in the 8th century, could also be attributed to the Carolingian system. I'll have to read up on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
Anyway thanks for adding some meat to the bare bones of my summary.
It was, in essence, a byproduct of the Charlemagne's movement toward a cavalry-dominant army (after the defeat of the Arabs in Aqutaine), as opposed to the previosly infantry-dominant (tribal) army. Since, at that time, equipment was exceptionally expensive, he granted domains to nobles (mainly by taking lands away from the Church), he also bound the nobles to him by oath. At that time, however, these holdings went back to the King after the death of the particular noble. Over time, the Kings usually granted the holdings to the (eldest) heir of the noble, and passing on his titles (at that time, that was an exceptionally strange occurence, the Franks did not have the concept of a firstborn, the inheritance was split into equal parts and divided amongst heirs, which is the reason of fairly common civil wars in the Frankish state). Over more time, the transferrence of title and holding to the eldest son became tradition, rather than an exception or service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perplexed
Knights where really the glue of Fuedalism, asking their significance to it is like asking what significance do priests have to the Catholic Church.
All lords, barons, dukes, etc where Knights, although not all Knights where lords, or dukes, or counts etc.
A knight owed military service to a higher up lord in return for land. Knights who had no land became mercenaries. While not serving in the army they would govern their land how they saw fit, and depending on their station they could be simply a lowly lord of a minor village, or a high and mighty rank like the Duke of Normandy with many castles fiefs lands and with his own knights serving him.
I always assumed during the Republic there was plenty of nobility (the Senators and their families) just not any Royalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
Early Republic, there were limitations on interaction between the nobility and the plebians. This was, however, rescinded in the 5th century, making their rights equal. During Augustus' reign, a sperate strata of Senators was formed, and, again, their interaction with other groups was limited, but nowehere near the previous levels (namely, they were merely forbidden from marrying freed slaves, and a few other limitations). During the late Empire, a new division arose, the Honestiores and Humiliores. Although there were no actual major differences, the Honestiores were the 'nobility', however, they were also the ones to be punished worse than the commoners for any breach of law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
However, the list of Senators existed even before Augustus, it just did not have any effect, other than prestige. They can be compared to politicians of today, they might be equal in name, but they have both wealth and power, meaning that they are not. However, a curiosity of the Roman system, is that Senators (and later Honestiores) were indeed expected to be more honest, and acti in good faith. And bad faith (mala fidei) would be severely punished, ending in the ejection from the Senatorial list.
The Equites, or knights, were merely an economic category. Once one had sufficent wealth, his name would be added to the list of knights. However, once the census fell out of use and was suspended, the existance of the Equites ended (not that they had much use militarily before, especially after Marius).
Getting OT here but how did Englands system of peerage develop?
Is there a lower rank than Baron - Baronet? Why does it differ from the European system?
It doesn't differ that much at all. It's mostly just a mixture of a few older titles and the Frankish ones introduced by the Normans.
It really didn't differ at all, really. However, the influence of the Catholic church was lesser (unlike the continent, England forbid the use of Roman law, except for priests). I don't exactly know about titles.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
Baronetcies are a hereditary knighthood that didn't carry the right to sit in the House of Lords. They're comparatively recent - only introduced in 1611 as a fund raising exercise by King James.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
In the European system, the whole family is enobled while in UK, only certain family members - male heir is raised to peerage?Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
Could you be more specific?
If you're Knighted in the modern UK it's as an individual for some merit. Higher, hereditary titles are kept within the family though - generally passing on to the eldest heir (usually male). I thought it was the same in most of Europe.
You live and learn.
Sorry guys, bet there are some mistakes here. I'm glad everyone is so interested in this, but we do need to be precise.
Most historians now reject the idea that feudalism/knights were invented by the Carolingians. The latest historical research pushes the arrival of the knight forward in time. to around the year 1000, in a development that is sometimes called the 'feudal revolution' and sometimes the feudal 'mutation'. Here the work of profs. Dominique Barthelemy and, to a lesser extent, Stephen White, has been formative. Thus, the origins of 'feudalism'--and even 'feudalism' itself as a concept has been challenged by Susan R. Reynolds-- and the knight lie in the collapse of the Carolingians, not in their golden age. A good summary is provided by Kelly DeVries in his book, Medieval Military Technology (the chapter on 'the stirrup, mounted shock combat and the origins of feudalism). The work of Bernard Bachrach has been seminal in refuting the thesis (first put forward by Heinrich Brunner in the 19th century and elucidated in the 1960s by Lynn White, Jr.) that Charles Martel invented feudalism.
Also, the knight did not emerge until the 10th century, at the earliest. The word for 'knight' is the same as the word for soldier in classical latin: miles (plural: milites). Historians don't start translating this as knight until the 10th century, when we begin to see medieval authors distinguishing between 'milites' and footsoldiers (ie. by phrases such as milites peditesque: knights and footsoldiers).
Note also that knights and nobility did not become synonymous until the 11th century at the earliest. Before that point, knight was not yet a social designation but a military function; calling someone a 'miles' meant calling them a soldier, not a noble/knight. Not all knights were nobles (in fact, most weren't), and not all nobles were knights. After the eleventh century, however, all the nobles started to call themselves knights, and knighthood and nobility can be said to be synonymous.
Just FYI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerageQuote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
"Members of a peer's family are also commoners; the British system thus fundamentally differs from the continental European one, where entire families, rather than individuals, were ennobled"
I read somewhere that Laurence Olivier was the first actor to be made a life peer in addition to being knighted (and thus had the rank of Baron Olivier and was due the honorofic Lord as a peer rather than just Sir as a knight). Anyone know if this is true?
Well, it is impossible to say, exactly ... there are very few actual sources on the Dark Ages. But, from what I've read, it is not so much Charlemagne that invented the insitution, it was already there, in the form of two seperate ones (namely title and land). It is also bound to the Arab conquests at that time, while the Franks were victorious, they required a stronger cavalry arm, thus, a large number of people were granted land. They also swore an oath to the Frankish ruler (the seperation of the two is quite distinct) to come to his aid in war, should he call for them. During the later, weaker rulers, and the collapse of the Frankish state, the granting of land and title came together, rather than being two separate institutions. Over more time, it began being passed from father to eldest son, even though it was not initially inheritable. Additionally, the numerous civil wars saw the nobility gaining power, as kings (in essence, every son of the King became King, then they fought over the entire state) sought to gain their support. So, in essence, it is true, the classical form of feudalism emerged around the collapse of the Frankish state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
However, much of what we know is guesswork. Some even try to connect the late Roman insitute of colonates to feudalism (since the landowners had serfs, or as close to the medieval term as one can come in that period, as well as private armies, fortified estates, etc.), even though there is little connection between the two. Most information comes from priests, who knew little of military matters. Other things can be gathered from what codifications of laws were preserved (which is, surprisingly, a lot), as well as some other sources, these tend to show a marked move from a tribal toward a feudal society, with a high amount of influence from the Roman ideals, but such influences would only become truly important in the 11th century and onward.
The way it worked in Germany (and spread to other parts of europe from there) is that the title was held by the family not the individual. And all members of the family had the right to use the title. Exceptions being for kings and emperors. For example every Habsburg was an Archduke or Austria and a Count of Habsburg. Just being popped out of their mothers granted them the title. They'd be an Arch duke of Austria and a Count of Habsburg. But I'm fairly sure the person who actually ruled the fief would be called the Count of Habsburg or the Arch duke of Austria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
But if the UK had followed the German tradition of titling princess Diana would have been a Countess of Spencer. And Winston Spencer-Churchill would never have been P.M. Being a Duke of Marlborough would have disqulified him from running for the house of commons.