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

Given these apparent similarities it should not be surprising that scholars have
generally chosen to translate the term 'equestrian' as 'knight'. One should not stretch
the comparison too far, however. In spite of the similarities between them the
equestrian class of Rome was not the same as the medieval knightly class, nor was
the one to evolve into the other. The armies of Rome through to the sixth century
comprised standing forces of more or less professional, paid soldiery. The equestrian
class was a small part of these forces, providing the officer cadre. By comparison, the
armies of the high middle ages (the period in which our knights become dominant)
were not permanent organizations nor were the warriors full-time, paid soldiers.
Furthermore, the knight was a significant part, both in numbers and importance, of
those armies. There is, then, a discontinuity between the military of the Roman period
and that of the middle ages. In order to find the origins of our medieval knight we
must look to the development of the post-Roman barbarian' kingdoms.
Through the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries it became increasingly difficult to
recruit troops for the Roman army, especially following its expansion under the rule
of the Tetrarchy, when power was shared (uneasily) between two 'emperors' and two
Caesars'. Increasing numbers of citizens acquired exemption from military service
and the shortfall was made up by recruiting barbarian peoples from beyond the
frontiers: individuals, war bands, even whole tribes. The army became divorced from
the civilian government and population, subject to its own laws and the jurisdiction
of its commanders. It sought to differentiate itself from the population of the region
in which it was stationed by taking on the cultural identity of the barbarian troops
who had been recruited for it. As the western empire fell apart, these 'barbarized'
units became the basis of new regional identities and their commanders, the majority
of whom were of barbarian origins, became kings of peoples and settled their
followers in the territories they governed. Military service and barbarian ethnicity
became synonymous; to be (for the sake of example) Frankish was to be a warrior,
and conversely to be a warrior was to be Frankish (or Lombard, Goth, Vandal and
so on). 'Barbarians' fought, 'Romans' paid taxes. This ethnicity and martial status
became hereditaiy, with the sons of Franks or Goths being themselves considered
Franks or Goths and inheriting the status, land, martial obligations and privileges of
their fathers.
During the seventh and eighth centuries the ethnic, 'barbarian' identities that had
differentiated between the warrior and civilian populations were adopted by free men,
the landholding class, who thereby gained the exemptions from taxation and the legal
and political privileges but also the liability for military service that went with
barbarian ethnicity. Those free men who did not re-brand themselves in this way lost
their freedom and became dependants of the barbarian' elite. As a result the social