ANST - Re: ansteorra V1 #1691

[Bethor2000 at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/26/99 12:00:35 AM Central Standard Time, Michael writes:

<< Historical precedence:
 Crown -> Royalty -> Landed nobility (dukes, barons, etc.) -> Knights of the
 Garter -> Banerets -> other knights, master artisans, etc. -> commoners
 
 <<This is potentially a subject of much interesting discussion and debate.
There
 are many opinions as to "what" and "why"; this is just my own understanding
of
 the topic. I invite others to contribute!>>>
 
Specifically in England of the Hundred Years War period, any man with an
annual income of at least Lb 40 was required to become a knight, or pay the
Crown a fine.  Most paid the fine, as it was far less expensive and onerous
than the unpaid office.  I believe the term Knights Bannerette was used to
denote a knight who actually raised/led troops for the war. The others were
referred to as Knights Bachelor.  I recently read that there were about 1000
knights in England during the late 14th century.  As far as a fighting force,
Squires (another term where the SCA and history part company) , Men at Arms
and Archers provided the back bone of the awesome English army.  Although the
Nobility did have knighting ceremonies during this period, it appears that
they held the majority of knights in the same view as others in the lesser
estates, they were commoners.  In fact it was the English Kings who helped to
shift a degree of power toward these commoners (knights, squires, etc) during
the Hundred Years War.  The commoners had something the Nobility was short on
and the king needed - Money!

Does anyone else find it interesting or ironic that an outnumbered capitalist
- based Army (English) consistently made life hell for the mightiest, most
feudal Kingdom of this period (France)?

Just my 2 farthings,
Alton
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.