What's up with the sergeants?

[Watchman]

Well, not all knights were rich. Quite the contrary really. Most noble families would tend to spawn more than one son, and as estates were normally inherited by the primogeniture principle (ie. the firstborn son pretty much gets everything) the younger brothers by and large either had to take the holy orders or take their weapons and armour and go sell their military skills to the highest bidder (or, as also happened, their eldest brother - no reason why they couldn't become *his* household knights, as such) to support themselves.

AFAIK many sergeants could well be quite markedly better off financially than most landless wandering knights were; after all, the sergeants could own land too in the feudal pyramid and could similarly be employed as parts of some lord's personal military followers.

As a side note, an incredible amount of modern military terminology and rank titles (at least in English) can trace their ancestry directly back to the Middle Ages. "Colonel" was apparently originally a Late Medieval Spanish term for what IIRC seemed to be a big-time condottiere, for example.

[L'Impresario]

As a side note, an incredible amount of modern military terminology and rank titles (at least in English) can trace their ancestry directly back to the Middle Ages. "Colonel" was apparently originally a Late Medieval Spanish term for what IIRC seemed to be a big-time condottiere, for example.

Good thinking heh, but "colonel" comes from the latin equivalent of "column", columna if I'm not mistaken. Maybe the word you 're looking for is caudillo - ofcourse the word came to encompass many extra meanings over the years.

[Watchman]

Wiki claims it first reappeared in late 1500s Italian as colonnello in charge of a colonne of troops, and entered English through French. *shrug* Following up the word "column" didn't yield much though (indeed, the article looked downright dubious and confused), so as of yet I'll be a tad sceptical of the claim to Roman origin. It's not like the Romanic languages were ever exactly shy of altering old Latin words to their convenience anyway.

Whatever the specific origin though the point of rather ancient ancestry behind assorted titles remains. "Captain" I know was already in use during the Middle Ages, and probably "corporal" as well ("myriad", although not a military term nowadays, was apparently a Persian unit designation in Classical times...).

[L'Impresario]

Well, "column" as a military term existed in the Roman ages as well. It seems that the medieval people weren't very innovative regarding terms. I remember browsing through dictionaries of medieval military terminology and being quite disappointed at the obvious lack of non-classical derived words heh - eitherway, the military is usually a conversative institution.

On "myriad", a Greek word, I think it just remained an arithmetical designation, at times a very general one (like in "countless") or specific (10.000). In modern Greek it retains both meanings.


And to stay closer to the topic at hand (although I believe it's a simple terminology subject as well),
I have to say that with the military system presented in the game, it really doesn't matter how they 're called, as their role is obviously to provide a middle layer of units, between the more "irregular" and elite ones. By having their numbers completely independent from that of the knights and nobles, any direct connection with the actual medieval army compositions is severed.

And for the etymology part of the initial question, here's a useful link.

Content duplicated below.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

c.1200, "servant," from O.Fr. sergent, from M.L. servientum (nom. serviens) "servant, vassal, soldier" (in L.L. "public official"), from L. servientem "serving," prp. of servire "to serve" (see serve); cognate with Sp. sirviente, It. servente. Specific sense of "military servant" is attested from c.1290; that of "officer whose duty is to enforce judgments of a tribunal or legislative body" is from c.1300 (sergeant at arms is attested from 1377). Meaning "non-commissioned military officer" first recorded 1548. Originally a much more important rank than presently. As a police rank, in Great Britain from 1839. Colloquial shortening sarge is attested from 1867. M.E. alternate spelling serjeant (from O.Fr.) was retained in Britain in special use as title of a superior order of barristers (1297, from legal L. serviens ad legem, "one who serves (the king) in matters of law"), abolished 1880, from which Common Law judges were chosen; also used of certain other officers of the royal household. sergeant-major is from 1573.

[rotorgun]

Thanks for the excellent defenition L'Impresario . It was very infomative, and cleared up a point or two. On a humorous side, in the American army we often use the term "Sarge" when addressing a non-commisioned officer. Most accept this informal title of their rank as normal. One particular platoon sergeant I worked under was not fond of the appellation in any form. He would always tell us " A sarge is a four legged fleece bearing creature, I am a Sergeant. A Sergeant is a non commisioned officer given his authority by God and the President of the United States to issue lawful orders in the performance of his duties. As one of those duties is to monitor the physical conditioning of my soldiers, I hereby lawfully order you to do twenty push-ups to remind you of the correct usage of my God given title!"

BTW, I am currently a Sergeant, but I don't mind occasionally being referred to as "Sarge", unless someone is a real ****head in need of some discipline!