I certify that I have read this thesis and have ... - Bilkent University

aises the question whether knights were introduced into England by the Norman
Conquest.
No recent historian seems prepared to defend this proposition. 217 Before
1066, there were some men in England referred to as cniht and they seem to
represent a similar range of people to those described on the Continent as miles. To
those who protest that cnihts are not found described as soldiers in pre-Conquest
English sources, Gillingham argues: “The Anglo-Saxon cniht was a retainer attached
to the personal service of a nobleman, that his service might well require him to
fight by his lord’s side, mounted and otherwise equipped for war.” 218 If someone
was identified as chivaler he was necessarily being associated with his horse, but
these too can hardly be described as a distinct group. 219 This does not mean that
before 1066 there could not have been influence from Francia, but before 1066
milites did not constitute a well-defined group. In the course of time, the status of
the knight in society gradually changed and became better defined, but it was
perhaps not until the beginning of the thirteenth century that knights emerged as a
distinct social group. 220
Dealing with the question of knights in a local context such as eastern
Suffolk in the period 1066-1166 is somewhat problematic. In Domesday Book for
eastern Suffolk, not even a single miles or cniht was recorded. In Suffolk as a whole
there was one miles, designated a miles Sancti Edmundi. His name was Wulfwy and
in 1066 he held the manor of Ingham (worth £4 in 1066, £8 in 1086) in Bradmere
Hundred. 221 Of course that does not mean that there were no more knights in
217
Though see Stenton, First Century, pp. 132-6.
218
Gillingham, “Thegns and Knights”, p. 171.
219
Golding, Conquest and Colonisation, pp. 141-3; Coss, Knight, pp. 11-13; Gillingham, “Thegns
and Knights”, pp. 169-72.
220
Coss, Knight, pp. 5-9, 43, 50-1, 67-9, 72.
221
Domesday Book Suffolk, fo. 364a.
79