medieval military ranks?

[NewJeffCT]

I have played a good 20 campaigns now of MTW the past year and a month. All SP and all starting in Early.

But, I wanted to know how accurate the units are in the game? Was a unit of the town watch actually called 'urban militia' and in a bigger town the better militia were no longer urban militia, but militia sergeants? Was a group of light mounted troops 'mounted sergeants' or 'hobilars'? It confused me a bit at first, because in modern US military terms, a sergeant is 'just' a higher ranking member of the army – i.e., there would be a unit of X number of soldiers and within that unit, there are a percentage of X that are corporals, sergeants, lieutenants, captains, etc.

Speaking of which, if a sergeant was a separate unit and did not lead a group of men in medieval times, what were typical military ranks within units in medieval times? Who commanded a group of urban militia or mounted sergeants and who kept them in line?

[CBR]

In early medieval times Sergeants were smallholders who owed service to their lords. Later on it more or less meant infantry. Some of them could be mounted and even be as heavily armed as knights. But it was different from country to country. Sometimes they were considered to be the elite among the the infantry.

Urban militia is just a broad term really. Lots of foot soldiers came from cities and could be considered the best equipped. But weapons varied: spears, polearms or crossbows.

Hobilars are the name of the lightly equipped cavalry that England used (first seen in the Scottish wars IIRC)

Trusted sergeants, squires or knights could be leading a unit of militia. The very specific military ranks we have today didnt really exist back then. The leadership could be considered a bit more ad-hoc compared to today.


CBR

[kiwitt]

I use this to categorise my Army Ranks in MTW.

Peasant Troops - Civilians
Militia Troops - Policemen
Spearmen/Light Cavalry/Archers/Crossbows - Weekend Soldiers
Men-At-Arms/Heavy Cavalry/Arbalests - Professional Soldiers
Foot or Mounted Knights - Professional Officers

Plus Artillery as required.

[Hurin_Rules]

It is a mistake to see sergeant as a rank in a medieval context; it is more like a class of soldiers, as the poster noted above, or a social class (servientes or vavassores in medieval latin).

That being said, many of the units in MTW were actually called such in the Middle Ages. Jinetes, Huscarles, Janissaries, etc.

For ranks, perhaps the ranks of the medieval feudal structure would work best. They would go something like this:

Emperor
King
Duke (Earl in Britain)
Count
Baron
Knight
Squire/Sergeant

Of course, such ranks don't really work for non-noble/feudal units, or for the Muslim and Byzantine peoples, but that's a start anyway.

[Kristaps]

Quote[/b] (CBR @ Jan. 22 2004,15:10)]Trusted sergeants, squires or knights could be leading a unit of militia. The very specific military ranks we have today didnt really exist back then. The leadership could be considered a bit more ad-hoc compared to today.

Well, my understanding is that real specific military ranks existed in the Roman empire. Would the frankish states that succeeded it had lost all of the previous military achievements? At least, they did inherit the church :)

[Hurin_Rules]

Sure, the romans had a well-developed system of ranks. Some of the medieval terms go back to late roman ones as well. Duke, for example, comes from the Latin dux, a military leader; count is from comes, again, the king's subordinate in late Roman/Early medieval kingdoms. But I thought we were talking about medieval ranks?

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Jan. 23 2004,00:49)]It is a mistake to see sergeant as a rank in a medieval context; it is more like a class of soldiers, as the poster noted above, or a social class (servientes or vavassores in medieval latin).

For ranks, perhaps the ranks of the medieval feudal structure would work best. They would go something like this:

Emperor
King
Duke (Earl in Britain)
Count
Baron
Knight
Squire/Sergeant

Thanks, just a few questions/additions:

-Prince fits between King & Duke.

-Margrave/Marquis fits between Duke & Count.

-A "Lord" is equal to a "Baron", right?

-I've read that "Earl" only equalled "Duke" before 1066; after, it was equivalent to "Count". I guess this is because the Normans broke up the multi-shire Earldoms (like Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria, East Anglia, etc.) and made it general practice that an Earl holds only one shire (like "Earl of Norfolk" instead of "Earl of East Anglia")?

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Kristaps @ Jan. 23 2004,20:46)]Well, my understanding is that real specific military ranks existed in the Roman empire. Would the frankish states that succeeded it had lost all of the previous military achievements? At least, they did inherit the church :)

I think it would be too harsh to say that previous military achievements were lost.

The Romans had a large standing army with a clear unit structure and equipment was supplied by the state. It was very centralised compared to the medieval armies.

Fot most medieval kings that system was something they could only dream about. They didnt have the money nor the political power. Local nobles would have different amount of men and depending on economy the quality in equipment for the common foot soldier would vary a lot.

With the early renaissance we start seeing the rank structure we have today. And terms like corporal, sergeant-major and colonel is something for that era of the much more trained and disciplined armies. Units of certain sizes with fixed amount of different weapons were not seen before.

The smallest Knight unit (a Banner of 20 or more men) would be led by a Banneret but these could be grouped into battles of very different sizes. The French Royal Army in 1328 that marched towards Cassel was divided into 10 battles of anywhere between 6 and 39 banners.

Today we have something like squad/platoon/company/battalion/brigade/division/corps/army/armygroup where at least division and below are nicely put into system. This type of structure is simply not seen in Medieval times and there would be perhaps only 1 or 2 "fixed" sizes.


CBR

[NewJeffCT]

Thanks for the responses. I realized when I first started playing the game that it must have been a bit different in medieval times, as nowadays, a sergeant would like command a small squad of men, whereas in the MTW game, sergeants are grouped into units (mounted, gothic, militia, feudal)

[Hurin_Rules]

Thanks, just a few questions/additions:

-Prince fits between King & Duke.

-Margrave/Marquis fits between Duke & Count.

-A "Lord" is equal to a "Baron", right?

-I've read that "Earl" only equalled "Duke" before 1066; after, it was equivalent to "Count". I guess this is because the Normans broke up the multi-shire Earldoms (like Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria, East Anglia, etc.) and made it general practice that an Earl holds only one shire (like "Earl of Norfolk" instead of "Earl of East Anglia")?


Prince could fit between king and duke, but it could also be used as a generic term for any ruler who had no real superior; this is the sense in which Macchiavelli uses is in 'The Prince', for example. It could therefore include kings, dictators, dukes, etc.

I would agree that Margrave/marquis would fit between duke and count.

Lord could be used in the sense of baron, but like prince the term could also have a more general meaning. In fact, the word lord (dominus) could technically be used for anyone who had vassals-- from baron on up to king or emperor.

I didn't know that about Earls-- seems to make sense. I do know that the multi-shire earldoms were seen as a problem by some Norman rulers, but didn't some of the Earls in the later Middle Ages hold more than one earldom?

Cheers

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Jan. 26 2004,11:59)]I didn't know that about Earls-- seems to make sense. I do know that the multi-shire earldoms were seen as a problem by some Norman rulers, but didn't some of the Earls in the later Middle Ages hold more than one earldom?

Cheers

More than one, yes. But "regional" multiples, like the great Duchies of Germany or France, wherein one lord held all of the counties in his region, no.

So after 1066, there were Earls holding more than one shire, but these shires were generally scattered among different regions. The great "regional" Earldoms, like Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria, and so on, were never revived.

[afroide]

Quote[/b] (Plantagenet @ Jan. 23 2004,16:14)]

Quote[/b] (Hurin_Rules @ Jan. 23 2004,00:49)]It is a mistake to see sergeant as a rank in a medieval context; it is more like a class of soldiers, as the poster noted above, or a social class (servientes or vavassores in medieval latin).

For ranks, perhaps the ranks of the medieval feudal structure would work best. They would go something like this:

Emperor
King
Duke (Earl in Britain)
Count
Baron
Knight
Squire/Sergeant

Thanks, just a few questions/additions:

-Prince fits between King & Duke.

-Margrave/Marquis fits between Duke & Count.

-A "Lord" is equal to a "Baron", right?

-I've read that "Earl" only equalled "Duke" before 1066; after, it was equivalent to "Count". I guess this is because the Normans broke up the multi-shire Earldoms (like Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria, East Anglia, etc.) and made it general practice that an Earl holds only one shire (like "Earl of Norfolk" instead of "Earl of East Anglia")?

To the best of my knowledge, 'Lord' was not a specific rank or title. Rather, it was an all-encompassing descriptor which could be applied to almost anyone above a knight or below the king.

I could be wrong though...

[Hurin_Rules]

Plantagenet,
Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers.

Afroide,
As I said above: "Lord could be used in the sense of baron, but like prince the term could also have a more general meaning. In fact, the word lord (dominus) could technically be used for anyone who had vassals-- from baron on up to king or emperor."

Cheers