You can read 'Horrible Histories, Measly Middle ages'.
That depends on what Knights you are talking about. Are you talking about the medieval Knights in each Kingdom, the Knights of Malta, the Knights Templar? You are going to have to be a little more specific to get a meaningful answer.
A guess here, about 1%. Very few were knights.
lords payed knights to protect them in their castle. In return the lord gave knights protection and land. Knights in class wise were lower than lords. lords are nothing close to being knights. Lords Had more land than knights.
Froissart, a medieval chronicler, believed that knights were more important than peasants. He viewed knights as the noble class who upheld chivalric ideals and protected society through their military prowess. Froissart often romanticized the deeds and adventures of knights in his writings, portraying them as the epitome of honor and valor in medieval society.
No one really. Samurai were more akin to Knights in medieval times, fighting for honor/ their kingdom. NINJAS on the other hand were often hired as assassins by the wealthy.
Possibly some other group used the medieval-sounding title. There are very real dramatic Knights at the Medieval times restaurants, and it is more probable some musical group may have had the title. also what of Sir Paul Mcartney- who was Knighted by Queen Elizabeth some years ago ( do not confuse with the MBE British Empire award presented to the entire group in l966- which they later returned.
In medieval times, knights were typically considered higher in rank and had more privileges than regular soldiers. Knights were usually nobility or wealthy landowners who could afford to be equipped with armor, weapons, and horses. They were trained in warfare, chivalry, and combat skills, while soldiers were often common foot soldiers or mercenaries who did not have the same status or training as knights.
Knights were peasants' overlords. Peasants owed them service (they would farm and work for them) in return for their land. Peasants were effected by what kind of overlord the Knight was, whether he was fighting, meaning he was away, or saving up to go on crusade, meaning he might need more money.
They were nobles first and knights second so they had lands with rents as well as crops that were sold or traded. In many cases as knights they also got booty from warfare and earned more favor from the king which would give them more lands and titles.
Rarely. They mostly fought in groups. Even Medieval tournaments - certainly the ones before 1500 AD - were only partly the one-on-one affairs with the long lances that Hollywood shows us. Much more often is was two groups of knights with blunted weapons hacking away merrily into each other. Those blungeoned to the ground forfeited ransom money (just as in real medieval battles) and being killed or dying from your wounds in a tournament was a common occurrence.
There are two distinct meanings of the word knight. One was a heavy cavalryman, a man who would fight from horseback with heavy weapons, as opposed, for instance, to a mounted archer. So medieval writers might refer to the cavalry of an Islamic army as knights. The other meaning of knight was a man who had been knighted by a king. (In earlier times, people other than kings knighted people in some places.) This required going through specific training and, finally, ceremonies. In practice, the people who did this were normally Christian. After the Great Schism in 1054, they would have been Roman Catholic in western Europe, or Eastern Orthodox in the East. There were monastic orders of knights, and these, of course, required their knights to be of their religion. Those I am aware of were all Roman Catholic.
In medieval times the knight was attended by his squires. The knight was training these squires in the martial arts as well as court etiquette. In theory the squires would dres the knight for battle, however as the squire was also going into battle it is more likely they were dressed by the pages or common retainers.