Osprey - General Military - Knight - The Warrior and ... - Brego-weard

BEYOND THE BATTLEFIELD: THE KNIGHT IN MEDIEVAL SOCIETY -•
no land to the German ministeriales, the serf-knights who were tied to a lord in much
the same way as a peasant might be, unable to marry without their lord's permission
or to pass on the property they held to their sons, but with the distinction that they
performed their service in arms rather than behind a plough and therefore were
considered to some extent noble.
The desire of the nobility to be connected with the role of knighthood was in some
ways inevitable. In the fragmented political situation of 11th-century Europe where
central authority was weak and local power-struggles and feuds were common, it was
increasingly important that the lord be able to lead his men into battle, as well as keep
them paid and equipped. Given that his warriors were steeped in a culture that lauded
prowess and military might, how was a lord to have their respect and allegiance unless
he could prove his own? There was a dignity and status that came from the bearing of
arms. The seals of nobles and monarchs of the mid-11th century reflect this, the images
of their owners enthroned with the symbols of crown, orb and sceptre being supplanted
by depictions of them riding into battle in armour with drawn sword or lance.
It was of course equally desirable for the knight to aspire to the ranks of the
aristocracy. By the end of the 12th century knights had begun to adopt some of
the trappings of aristocracy. The diffusion of heraldry, with knights adopting
individual arms rather than wearing those of their lord, hints at the increasing sense
of independence and status. So too does the adoption by the knight of honorific titles
such as 'sire' and 'lord' and seals, both once the preserve of princes and magnates.
By the 1160s commentators, such as the French writer Andrew the Chaplain, were
beginning to conflate the terms noble' and 'knight', and the Assize of Clarendon
of 1166, which saw a major restructuring of the process of justice in England,
distinguished knights as a marked group within society.
There was still, however, a distinction between the noble and the 'common knight'.
A nobleman might consider himself and be considered a knight, a warrior capable of
fighting on horseback and possessing a hauberk, helm, spear and shield, but this did
not mean that every knight was now considered to be noble. The sharing of chivalric
values did not necessarily mean a sharing of political interests and it is a common
feature of the Anglo-Norman narratives of the mid-12th century that the milites
'gregarii', 'rusticii' or 'pagenses', the common or rural knights, are distinct from and
often hostile towards the niilites nobilitatis, the knights of the nobility.
A further gradation within the ranks of knighthood was the banneret. First and
foremost it was a practical military distinction, indicating those knights who led other
knights beneath a banner — a rallying point and marker on the field. However it also
accrued a social distinction. As early as 1160s the Anglo-Norman writer Wace was able
to write in his pseudo-history of the Normans, the Roman de Rou, that 'barons had
181