[Mark Gattis]

Could someone clarify this term for me? What exactly dose the term “man at arms” mean?

Were they solders of any social rank armed for battle?

Or were men at arms household retainers of mid-level social standing, owing there loyalty to a knight or noble?

Who exactly dose this term refer to?

Mark

[Helen Miller]

You can find some general information here. Also, click on some of the links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-at-arms

[Jeff Johnson]

Nice definition. Wikki continues to improve and impress.

[Aaron Schnatterly]

[Daniel Staberg]

The Wikipedia article has few errors in it although all in all it get the basics right. The word Man-at-arms denotes a type of soldier equipped in a certain way to fullfill a certain tactical function. (In the same way "archer" denotes a soldier armed with a bow and "crossbowman" one with a crossbow.)
What set the men-at-arms apart was that not that they wore armour as implied by the Wiki article since most soldiers wore some armour (and used swords) but they wore full head to foot armour and were traiend for mounted combat with the lance. Hence the other terms commonly substituted for men-at-arms in the documents: "lance", "spears" or ges darmes, man of arms. The English commonly fought on foot in the 100-Years War and came to divide their Men-at-arms into two types. The Lance a cheval who was trained and equipped for mounted combat and the Lance a pied who was a Men-at-arms who moved on horseback but who was not equipped and/or trained to fight mounted.