where did a knight live?(subject changed)

[antonyjcummins]

A simple question but I think a good one. Where did a knight live? Obviously this is a broad question as there are many levels of knighthood (can somebody give me a comprehensive list) at different chronological episodes but in general did a knight live in a castle or was that for those of the aristocracy. Leaving the knight to live in his own dwelling until the time arose? Or did the feudal lord keep ‘barracks’ for those knights in his retinue? If so what did the knight do with his wife? Again obviously this would be different for those on crusade or those attached to a military order as oppose to ‘domestic’ knights. I would just like to open a topic of conversation on the day to day role of the knights and there different functions.

Thanks

Ant

Post scrip

Don’t forget to visit www.phd-help.co.uk

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Well, to take it simply, "knighthood" as a social phenomenon wasn't a simple thing, and the "man-at-arms"--the knightly role in medieval warfare--was scarcely less complicated. Let's just assume that by "knights" you mean the "gentry," which is the knightly social class sitting somewhere between the hoi polloi and the nobility. We can generally say that they chose their place of residence based on their wealth, their social status, and their military role. Many gentlemen (esquires and knights alike) lived in rather ordinary townhouses, though perhaps more richly furnished than most. Others, being placed in possession of large tracts of rural lands, would probably have lived in a manor house within the bounds of their fief--although the richer ones might have had townhouses as well and alternated between the two according to need or fancy. Then there were men-at-arms who were not given lands in tenure, but were maintained directly as part of the lord's household; these would have lived in the lord's castle or palace or manor house or whatever. They might have been paid in cash or the lord might have fed and cared for them as part of an extended "family."

A man-at-arms living in a castle would usually have been living in his lord's castle, not his own. Nevertheless, there were a few members of the gentry who either inherited castles or were rich enough to gradually build their own. There were also some gentlemen who were given the captaincies of castles belonging to their lords (mostly the direct vassals of kings assigned to the captaincies of royal castles).

The knight would have probably lived with his wife in any case. If they had their own land or house, this was not an issue. If they lived in their lord's dwelling...well, people back then also demanded rather less privacy. Sheets were generally considered enough privacy for sexual acts when sleeping in a great hall, but particularly distinguished retainers might be lucky enough to get their own private quarters. Even then their standards of privacy weren't exactly as high as ours since they could expect servants to enter and leave their rooms without warning or announcement except if they had specifically asked the servants not to disturb them.

And that's just skimming the surface of the water. These are very broad generalizations, and they can become quite irrelevant when we're dealing with the situation of one specific member of the gentry.

What I'm puzzling about is the relevance of this topic to WMA. Is it meant to eventually discuss the arrangements for education and training in skills at arms?

[antonyjcummins]

i think that to study the combat it is relevent to understant the social aspects

[s_taillebois]

M. Cummins,
As M. Curtis has noted, the living locations were variable. Often these men did live in proximity to the towns, as it wasn't uncommon for the lower nobility to have offices such as Sheriff (in the medieval sense) and other administrative functions. Accordingly, in addition to battlefield obligations they did sometimes serve as armed keepers of the peace. (In those areas which didn't have charters for town militias).
As young adults (about 12) where many lived was as retinue for a greater lord, or allied family. Partially to learn court manners, but also to serve as doorwards (literally), and henches. As young men, they often literally slept in the door to the Lord's chambers.
The wives, these were usually arranged marriages, and they did have to have permission from a liege to do so. Often, except in the smaller manors, the women's and mens lodgings were separated-in the late medieval...earlier everybody was in much closer proximity.
Also have to consider, these men weren't averse to involvement in industry (controlling forges,watermills and etc) although they generally did not actually work therein. Weirdly enough, some did play a important role in the system which produced the initial metals for their weapons...hence all the sqaubbling about forest rights...more fuel than fox hunts.
In general, where they sat at a table, and such, was incredibly important to them...whether within their abode, or their lieges, the conventions of status and arms were often very carefully observed.
By all most involved, those who broke those conventions, could be executed by higher ups, and often the higher ups took care in their conduct to avoid the three causes for which a noble could revolt against a liege...personal attack, subverting a fief (including taking command of a nobles personal retinue without consent) and seduction (wives).
Given these men lived in an incredible violent time, and had trained for killing...within the holdings, conventions were usually followed.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

i think that to study the combat it is relevent to understant the social aspects

Of course, but which social aspects do you wish to focus on? Without a closer and more specific focus, this discussion runs the risk of spiraling endlessly without reaching a definite conclusion. So, are you asking about a man-at-arms or a gentleman's abode in relation to his training in skills at arms? To the problem of defending a lord's domain? Or to the question of how a man-at-arms would defend himself if attacked in his residence? There is a wealth of information to be mined from discussions like this--if we can have a picture of what we're specifically talking about.

(In relation to the last option, the routines of patrol and defense in depth in medieval Europe were actually quite sophisticated and effective when it came to guarding a single specific person.)

[antonyjcummins]

I’m talking more about a man who had received an accolade and could be classed as ‘sir’. I must admit I am somewhat slightly confused at the levels of knighthood. They have spanned a thousand years and subdivided into many categories. Where may I get a clearer picture of the hierarchy of knighthood? I just want to eradicate from my mind the media build up of a knights life and come to grips with more of a reality. Would it be the case of a knight saying good morning to his rich merchant neighbor, or would they be in seclusion within a castle or other such things. Sorry I have just realized I am expanding the conversation and not narrowing it, but I think you may now understand where I’m coming from? Furthermore, what were the rights of knights over subordinates?

[antonyjcummins]

m. taillebois, thanks for your imput, most interesting. can you expand on the seating arrangment?

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Well, I've written a couple of amateur essays on this subject, mostly for the benefit of fiction writers looking for information to use in their worldbuilding. One ([url][/url]) deals with the types of land tenure in medieval England and France; another ([url][/url]) concerns the definition of "man-at-arms," the knightly role in the medieval European military institutions. I believe both of them are good introductions to their respective subjects for a lay audience, but if you're looking for serious information then they're very simplistic and inadequate. In that case I'd suggest you to start your research in any of these sites:

NetSERF (http://www.netserf.org/)

The ORB (http://the-orb.net/)

De Re Militari (http://www.deremilitari.org), the Society of Medieval Military History.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that you got to the "wrong" place, since ARMA actually does a great deal of research into the Western martial heritage. Its primary focus is on the combative arts, however, and if you're more interested in the broader social milieu of Medieval and Renaissance Europe then these sites might be a better choice to satisfy your curiosity.

[s_taillebois]

Generally, the closer to the Liege, was the greatest honour. So, for example, a Marshall would have been profoundly offended if a Lord chose to seat some younger new favorite in his accustomed place. Also, it seems that the seat to the right held more status, than one to the left. (literally Dexter and Sinister apparently)
In the less status obsessed era, (ie early Dane/Saxon) this may have mattered less, but by the Gothic it had been codified.
Also such things as the proximity to the washing bowls on the tables, whether or not one had a single cup, and such were all indicators of status. As was the privilage of being a cup bearer to a liege. Also the level to which the trencher was eaten down was a status marker. The higher ups were tended to eat less of the trencher, and hand the remains to the really low status people. The lowest level, actually squabbled over getting a grease soaked muck of bread.
And the sequence in which one entered a hall also was extremely important. In some cases, duels and executions resulted from someone jostling another in chambers or halls.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Duels being fought over precedence in entering the dining-chamber? Isn't that a 16th-century paradigm instead of a medieval one? I've heard about legal disputes, executions, assassinations, and even private wars sparked by questions of precedence, but not duels of honor--not in medieval times.

The rest, of course, is spot-on. BTW, there is actually an article from the Ricardian Society that describes the dining habits of Richard III's court: http://www.r3.org/life/articles/food1.html. it might be worth checking.

[s_taillebois]

Depended a lot on the context. Dining chamber less so, but other meeting areas, such troubles did happen. Formal duels in the sense of the cased rapier crowd, not as much. But some of the goings on at tourneys were 'enhanced' by bad feelings.
If it was a lofty enough environ, discourtesy could result in trouble. Just prior to the wars of the roses, there were several incidents which did result in deaths. At times, the Lord or King would order such as a means of keeping control over developing chaos.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Well, yes, seen in that way then lots of personal conflicts did take place due to question of precedence. But these conflicts took the form of tournament incidents, judicial combats, assassinations, or private wars--not duels of honor.

[s_taillebois]

Quite true, poor choice of words on my part. Duel refers to a more specific situation. Honor (at least their perception of it) did play a role, however the specific concept of the duel, developed as you note, much later.

Behind the tourneys, a lot of chicanry, arranged 'accidents', and etc. No doubt why the church spent so much time trying to constrain these events, and such as Elanor and Henry derived codes of conduct. (Ironic, given the behavior of those two...)

Something groups like ARMA will have to watch in our own context and time. Sparring with intent, some care may need to be taken that the miswended souls don't spar with a another, misplaced, and personal intent. Otherwise our 'kings' will drive the study of this art, out of existance or underground...especially after the first major publicized incident. M. Clement's has done well, given the diverse student's of the art, to have contained such problems.
That's why it would be useful to have ARMA publish studies of the original moral codes for the fencing of the period. We are not them, but to understand the necessities they had, to moderate conduct, could be useful. And it would (partially) negate the fur covered fantasists, who take neither the art, nor it's necessary disciplines, seriously.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

I agree completely. The warrior ethics and codes of the era are definitely within the scope of ARMA research, and I'd be glad to see some people here trying out their practical application in fights with full intent.

[antonyjcummins]

I’m probably going to start something here, but I actually disagree with ‘sparring’ I think it is a ‘mine field’ and should be avoided. I could go into all the different reasons why but that would take too long and has been well considered on this website. but I’m in Japan at the moment, and even though styles do differ the route of all martial arts is the same, style and way are just a product of chronology, technology and situation among others. But in my experience, sparring is detrimental for numerous reasons. That is not to say they didn’t do it, but the old saying, of the Romans “bloodless battles” as training was probably close to the truth. In today’s world people can’t except that level of hostility and therefore the sparring becomes half hearted and useless. In my experience true mastery comes from inputting natural body movement into the subconscious so your subconscious reacts in the correct way, a training of the reflexes, for everybody knows that conscious thought is too slow for combat, and therefore our ‘mock sparring’ borders in between the two, and usually leaves you feeling dismayed. Whereas in reality the results have been much more devastating for me, as when the sub conscious hits in it’s a different kettle of fish. Plus getting hit with an oak stick is much worse then a plastic foam implement.

But that’s just my humble opinion.

Finally, we may not be them but I truly believe that (especially in my home of England) moral codes have dropped and that the study of chivalry is a worthwhile venture for any man. People study bushido for no other reason then interest, why the teachings of Ramon lull go unknown to the modern reader. (Does anyone have a list of other chivalric codes?)