[Eric Nower]

Hello all,

I was wondering what the differenaces were, if any, in the training of the men-at-arms vs. knights? Most of the books i have read seem to focus more on the knights. The men-at-arms were the knights body gaurd and recived more traing and better equitment than the regular infantry, but to what end? Were they sent to the sword schools? Trained by the knights themselves? Trained among themselves?

[Felix Wang]

Knights and men-at-arms were not two separate and distinct categories. In England, knighthood was a social distinction that carried legal rights and obligations with it. At times, English kings had to issue laws forcing men of the right wealth and status to become knights, because the duties attached to knighthood discouraged many potential candidates. A man labelled a squire might be as well armed and trained as another man with a knightly rank. "Man-at-arms" describes any heavily armoured warrior trained as a mounted fighter. The French term "gens d'armes" is literally "man at/of arms", and the Gendarmerie of French kings like Francis I included many of the nobility. As far as training is concerned, I think all of these men were trained in a similar fashion. Training was likely in the manner of an informal apprenticeship, with a senior fighter putting the novices through their paces, as much as time and inclination would permit.

[Rod Walker]

Knights are Men-at-Arms, but not all Men-at-Arms are Knights.