What skills do you feel a man-at-arms in the 14th/15th century would have possessed? (would any of these skills have been specific to a time period or physical location?)

--------------------

I'd figure skills for a basic man-at-arms to include;

- Riding to a pretty serious level, both in combat and for hunting, travel etc. Probably not much jumping, by modern standards, though. Horse care and basic vet stuff - he'll have looked after horses in his youth, even if he has a groom to look after his horse now.

- Weapons skills in most period weapons, including those we wouldn't normally consider "knightly", such as bows. Remember that the last time the princes in the tower were seen, they were practicing their archery, and that Henry VIII and Francis I don't think it's beneath them to wrestle each other. (Henry loses, and sulks)

- Carving at table, and serving his lord. Any "Gentle" youth will have learned this from birth, and these skills would be a matter of real pride - squires are often complemented at their skill at carving.

- Precedence and manners. Is a French count to be seated above Italian one at dinner? Does this depend on whether one is your prisoner or not? How should I greet a person of such-and-such a rank visiting my lord? Getting stuff like that wrong can cause serious insult.

- Hawking. At the very least, he would know how a bird should be trained and flown, even if he wouldn't necessarily own one himself.

- Reasonable level of literacy and numeracy - somebody at that level who couldn't read would be unusual (the equivalent of somebody who can't drive today, perhaps) and might well be involved in administration, in peace or war. Assume somebody who can divide and multiply in both roman numerals and base-twelve (dozens, grosses etc).

- Languages aren't necessary, but quite likely to have a smattering of latin (probably knowing what some words and phrases mean, rather than being able to speak it properly), and possibly foreign languages, eg an English man at arms is pretty likely to have visited or served in Calais, Gascony etc.

- Working knowledge of the law, since he is going to be involved to some extent in the administration of justice.

- Basic skills like "How to light a fire with a tinderbox" that have fallen out of everyday use, but are vital to anyone living then. How to care for and repair your equipment, in the same way a modern soldier would be expected to be able to strip his personal weapon.

- Singing and/or playing an instrument, at least to some level....though not necesarily to any great level of skill. Think of late-victorian middle-class families, and the fact that "music making" is considered a normal way to spend an evening, if it helps any.

- Dancing, both in terms of etiquette (who can dance with whom, when and how), and the actual steps used.

- How to move in armour. If this sounds self-evident, think of some of the people you see clumping around some sites, then think of the illustrations in the Fechtbuch - these people are using their armour as an active system, for traps, locks and so on, as well as a passive protection.

- Heraldry, to the level that you would be able to identify every major lord in the country by their arms, and most of the minor ones, describe and read blazon and know the rules regarding its use.

- How to stand and wear your clothes. If you think this is self-evident, think again.
We're sloppy about that stuff nowadays.

Think of victorian ladies walking around with books on their heads to improve their deportment. Think of the huge cuffs on c17th court coats, and how stupid they look unless you hold your arms correctly.

Doesn't apply to us? OK, now try and wear some of the medieval designs at dinner without getting your cuffs in the sauce. Can you even bow correctly? Are you sure? Neil

To add and refine,

A working knowledge of the customs of chivalry.

A greater knowledge of the laws of warfare (than the common law)(plentiful manuscript copies of Honore Bovet's "Tree of Battles" abound)

A working knowledge of Estate administration

A working knowledge of the common forms of hunting, with hounds and without (in addition to the aforementioned hawking) - this was one of the chief forms of recreation for the class

A knowledge of the art of being a good companion to those who are ones equals and social superiors

A knowledge of how to treat with ones social inferiors and dependants (the art of 'good lordship')

A cursory examination of any of the numerous books of manners will fill in a wealth of detailed information

--------------------

we know from period stories, etc what the qualities expected of a lady are (as they extole the virtues of one, or point out what a skanky chick the other one is... ).

the lists above sound great, but do we have any period documentation that THEY thought these things were important?

what qualities are held up or cast aside in the primary sources of our time and place?

--AM

--------------------

Balthazar Castiglione's "Book of the Courtier"

"The Babee's Boke of Nurture"

Froisarts "Chronicles"

Honore Bovet's "Tree of Battles"

Portions of "The Paston Letters"

Jean Beuil's "Le Jouinvincelle"

There are bunches more.

--------------------

I'd actually hold that my list is good for a man-at-arms, as well as a knight.

A lot of it is vital "job skills" - if you can't ride well and handle your weapons, you can't do the job, end of story.

Quite a bit of the rest would actually be skills that people even further down the social scale would have - they'd certainly be able to light a fire, for instance, and we hear of peasant kids who can recite the arms of famous and/or local knights.

The precedence and etiquette stuff, well, there's great stress on that in books of the period for servants of gentle birth knowing such matters, and I'd certainly say that a man at arms would have at least that level.

Estate management, law etc - if I can't do that, I'm an expensive thug, even in period. Maybe I can get away with it, but it will be atypical.

I actually tried to think of any of the well-documented c15th english gentry families (The Pastons before they get knighted, the Burghs, the Clarvaux) to see what sort of level of legal knowledge they displayed, but kept finding I had to dismiss almost every family I could think of, because at least one of them was actually a lawyer!

The music and dancing, hell, this is how you spend your free time before TV, and these are the kind of dances that you have to learn...even peasants are going to know this sort of thing, if not the latest courtly dances.

Think of the C19th, or go ask your grandmother if she danced when she was a girl. She will have done, and it'll have been ballroom stuff that required tuition!

I take your point about knights being lawyers, rather than necessarily "military men".

Edward III, for instance, is routinely knighting his judges and the lord mayor of london, and the Pastons become a knightly family when one of them does well as a lawyer.

However, this doesn't mean you aren't expected to kill people for the king when necessary. Consider; Sir John Paston (I think - I get them mixed up) may be the son of a lawyer, but he gets ordered to turn up with his men to fight for the king, and holds a castle.

Even people like the London Merchants enobled by Edward III and IV see combat. Consider the one who was knighted for his work suppressing scottish pirates, for instance, or that among the troops Richard II takes to face down the peasant's revolt in 1381 are the mayor and aldermen of london IN ARMOUR.

In the same way, civil administratiors often form your military command structure if you're fighting on english soil.

As late as the ECW, 150 years later, you are routinely assuming that if you need troops - whether you're parliament or the king - you send out comissions to your local notables, which includes local administrators, and they raise your army for you.

Status has obligations, and for anyone of knightly status (no matter how you got there), those obligations include the delivery of personal violence under certain circumstances.

You are correct, we are deviating from the original question.

There are also real differences between the English and Continental experience, both in military and social terms.

I think we are generally in agreement as to the basic skills of a man at arms.

Equally, we differ in our viewpoint about

- how far down the social scale some of these skills would be found, especially some of the more self-conscously courtly skills.
- how far up the social scale a man-at-arms actually is.

This doesn't mean either of us is wrong - I think we've both looked at similar sources, but differ in the opinions we have formed from them.

I would think of a man at arms as being an important figure in local society, just below knighthood - an esquire, or at least a gentleman.

Even the lowest of such categories would notably above even skilled craftsmen, both socially and in economic terms...and I tend to think that even a skilled craftsman would be pretty secure economically, and possess at least the level of "social" skills I'd expect from a skilled craftsperson (say an engineer or an accountant) today.

Does that make sense?

Either way, you are absolutely correct, the best method is to read up on period material, and form one's own opinion. I merely give mine, and you may agree or disagree.

Neil

PS

QUOTE

"We know at this point in while the English are busy playing politics and familly feud and being medieval by slaughtering each other, the rest of Europe is already in what is called the Rennaisance. England is described by an Italian merchant as miserable backwater."

when trying to get into the medieval mindset, I find it useful to draw some correlaries with the modern.

what skills would a middle class/upper middle class workin' guy have?

1. how to carry out his trade. For the soldier, this would be how to care for his arms and armor (not neccessarily how to make it, but how to repair it in the field), weapons and horse if he has one.

Modern soldier guys know how to take care of their guns, put on and maintain their parachutes, and such, and if responsible for the cars, they know how to fix them.

2. how not to embarass themselves in public. Basic table manners, how to intereact with your betters and your lessors, etc. See the period books of manners for complete details.

Modern middle/upper middle class guys know how to open a bottle of wine, even how to select it. They know how to carve a turkey. They know to pull a chair out for a lady, and how to meet and greet at a cocktail party. See modern books of manners for complete details .

3. Basic geography and such for the area they live/work in. how to get to the neighbors farm, what supplies can be found where, how much stuff costs so you dont get ripped off, etc (le Menagier describes this in great detail)

Joe Medievals modern counterpart knows his way around his own town, and how to get to the towns around him that he hits frequently. He knows how to get the supplies he needs (how to shop, etc), and can provision himself or delegate as needed.

there's more, but you get the idea.

most importantly, SOME medieval guys know things like hawking and hunting, just like SOME modern guys know how to ski, or are into classical music.

I find its easy for us as modern people reading about a period to get a rather skewed view of what our medieval counterparts would have known. I am really into cuisuine, for example, and so am familair with the sources from lots of times and places. Medieval Anne-Marie would never have heard of cilantro juice, much less used it, eventhough it was being used over in Spain during her time.

at least this is my spin on it...
--AM

--------------------

when trying to get into the medieval mindset, I find it useful to draw some correlaries with the modern.

what skills would a middle class/upper middle class workin' guy have?

1. how to carry out his trade. For the soldier, this would be how to care for his arms and armor (not neccessarily how to make it, but how to repair it in the field), weapons and horse if he has one.

Modern soldier guys know how to take care of their guns, put on and maintain their parachutes, and such, and if responsible for the cars, they know how to fix them.

2. how not to embarass themselves in public. Basic table manners, how to intereact with your betters and your lessors, etc. See the period books of manners for complete details.

Modern middle/upper middle class guys know how to open a bottle of wine, even how to select it. They know how to carve a turkey. They know to pull a chair out for a lady, and how to meet and greet at a cocktail party. See modern books of manners for complete details .

3. Basic geography and such for the area they live/work in. how to get to the neighbors farm, what supplies can be found where, how much stuff costs so you dont get ripped off, etc (le Menagier describes this in great detail)

Joe Medievals modern counterpart knows his way around his own town, and how to get to the towns around him that he hits frequently. He knows how to get the supplies he needs (how to shop, etc), and can provision himself or delegate as needed.

there's more, but you get the idea.

most importantly, SOME medieval guys know things like hawking and hunting, just like SOME modern guys know how to ski, or are into classical music.

I find its easy for us as modern people reading about a period to get a rather skewed view of what our medieval counterparts would have known. I am really into cuisuine, for example, and so am familair with the sources from lots of times and places. Medieval Anne-Marie would never have heard of cilantro juice, much less used it, eventhough it was being used over in Spain during her time.

at least this is my spin on it...
--AM

--------------------

The question was asked as a persona development question, what skills could I work on to increase my portrayal? I hope to gain a better understanding of what was important to a fighting man.

I believe that Charney uses man-at-arms to refer primarily to a member of the nobility, however, I am also curious about people who were not born into the nobility or people that bore arms as a member of the other estates. I have found the discussion of being taught from birth verses having to acquire skills at a later date to be very intriguing.

I asked a similar question on the Armour Archive but changed the man-at-arms to knight. The answers have been fairly similar, however, no where close in the detail that this discussion has had. I was curious about how people from different groups would answer this question; the major difference I have found is assumptions verses opinions backed up by research.

--------------------

OK, flicking from the general "what skills would a man-at-arms have" to the specific "what skills could I learn to improve my portrayal" gives a different spin.

I'd say the most important thing is that you must have certain very basic skills to portray a man-at-arms. These are things like knowledge of who you are, what sort of life you live, etc.

After that, it's a case of "what aspect of this persona's life am I interested in?"

If you're interested in combat, build your interpretation around demonstrating and explaining your combat skills.

If you aren't interested in combat, or aren't any good at it yet, leave the sword in its sheath, and talk about and demonstrate whatever aspect you ARE interested in, say falconry or whatever.

The public won't be around for more than a couple of hours, so you don't have to be able to do every single thing your real-world equivalent could, and realistically, you wouldn't be able to, because he gets his whole life to learn it, and you don't.

It's far better to do a couple of things well, or even just one, than try to do everything and not really be good at any.

More to the point, if you're bored rigid by horses or whatever, trying to learn everything about medieval horse care isn't a good use of what is, after all, your leisure time.

- Think about what real-world resources you can get... If you're going to demonstrate falconry, or anything equestrian, that means a horse or a falcon, and a massive commitment of time. If you can't afford that, pick another aspect of your persona to interpret.

- Think about what everyone else in your group is interested in doing, and what kind of shows you'll do. Some variety is nice, but some things don't go well together - just imagine your group is doing "Aftermath of Towton", and there are three or four guys all explaining what a hard march it was, and what a hard fight...and there's this other guy explaining about courtly dancing? Doesn't really fit, does it?

--------------------