0
Knights
From the Court of Arthur and the Round Table to Ivanhoe, from fire-breathing Dragons to Damsels in distress, No, not really, The life and times of a Knight during the Middle Ages. It's not so romantic as you have been lead to believe.
1,849 Questions
Who was eligible to become a knight in middle ages?
In general, the people who became knights were the sons of nobility and knights.
Technically, the king of a country could knight anybody, and everyone was eligible in that sense. There are records of people being knighted who were not members of the nobility, and there are records of women being knighted.
There is a link below to a question about women knights. Some of the women described in the answer were not members of the nobility.
What symbolizes the passage from squire to knight?
Age. At the age of 21 a young noble, who had gone through the training, was made a knight.
Who were the knights of the Grand Cross?
Knight Grand Cross (or Dame Grand Cross) is the most senior grade of seven British orders of chivalry, three of which are obsolete. Knights and Dames Grand Cross rank after Baronets and Baronetesses and the senior orders of England, Scotland and Ireland (the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle and the obsolete Order of St. Patrick respectively), and before the Order of the Companions of Honour, interspersed with the Order of Merit, Baronets, the Order of the Crown of India.
Current orders that award the rank of Knight (or Dame) Grand Cross (not counting obsolete orders):
- Order of the Bath (GCB)
- Order of St Michael and St George (GCMG)
- Royal Victorian Order (GCVO)
- Order of the British Empire (GBE)
They did the odd jobs for knights and were in training to become knights. They were the son's of nobles who showed promise of knighthood.
Where the Saxons bulding or burning churches?
They were burning churches, especially between 750 and 780 before and during the saxon wars which Charlemagne started in 772 to stop de saxon raids on frankish territory.
How did the Templar Knights effect the modern world?
They are supposed to have invented the banking system.
Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Who was the first woman to ever become a knight?
Charlemagne had a Lady Bradamante- who alledgely died in the field ( in combat) in 778 A.D. Obviously, she was a mistress of the then French War Lord- he was not crowned King until 800 AD. Charlemagne had a female Knight centuries before France produced Joan Of Arc. There were Spanish Cavalleras of the Order of the Hatchet- established ll49 AD. Some day one of these Ladies In Armor will be exhumed- and will that shake up the museums. Once a Knight is not enough- might be a jocular cry.
What did Knights have for lunch?
Lunch was not a regular meal during medieval times; breakfast and dinner were the only standard meals of the day. A common snack might have been a piece of fruit.
Is the knight of Templar a product of prophecy?
No, the knights templar were an organization in the crusades and are real.
What happened to the templar knights in the end?
They were persecuted and those caught burned at stake, oficially.
A horse belonging to someone with with a title. E.G King or Queen.
The duties of the Knight come from their relationship with Lords and Peasants. A knight is the lowest level of the nobility in the European Feudal system. A knight swears fealty to a more powerful lord (becoming his vassal), who swears fealty to an even higher lord, etc. The knight and his men-at-arms can then be called upon to serve in the army of the lord that he is sworn to. The Knight was also responsible for governing a land area, known as his manor. Peasants would swear fealty to the Knight and work his land. In exchange, the peasants would get to keep a portion of the fruits of their labour for themselves. The Knights' primary responsibilities on the manor were to train himself and his men-at-arms for combat, to serve his lord and to defend the peasants working his manor, and to provide justice and the rule of law to his subjects.
What did people wear in the Middle Ages?
During the Early Middle Ages (476-1000), clothing tended to be simple and somber for nearly everyone. And this trend continued for peasants for the whole period. The cut of the clothing was derived from that of ancient Rome, with tunics predominating, though in northern areas, people wore breeches, possibly covering the feet in addition to the legs. Wealthy people added furs and jewelry, which serfs could not afford. The most important fabric was wool, and there was also linen fabric. Jewelry included rings, necklaces, torques, and brooches, and could be very elaborate. Fine embroidery was used, and during the later part of this period, the needle work of Anglo saxon embroiderers was famous throughout much of Europe.
Shoes were turn-shoe style, meaning that they were fitted but had a very simple shape drawn together with a string. Shoes for wealthy people were better made, but were similar to those for the lower classes. Sandals were worn, especially in southern areas.
During the High Middle Ages (1000-1300), people started experimenting with costume just as they experimented with Gothic architecture, secular poetry, and polyphonic music. Most of the early changes centered on the question of color. Wealthy people wore long tunics and flared sleeves, while poorer peoples' tunics were shorter. Silks began to be used extensively among the very rich in the last years of the High Middle Ages. This was the result of the opening of the silk road by the Mongols, after they conquered Central Asia. Also, more expensive furs came to be imported from such places as Russia. Shoes remained simple.
During this period, the symbols of wealth became more and more important, and the materials used were dictated by class. It became necessary for members of the nobility to see to it that their place in society was not usurped by people who were merely wealthy. The result was that sumptuary laws were enacted forbidding people below certain stations to wear particular fabrics or items identified with nobility.
Colorful fashions and trinkets were used by men before they were used by women. The philosophy of the time compared people with animals and said this was the natural order. Male lions had manes, lionesses did not. Male birds had bright plumage, and females were colored with browns. So, they argued, human beings should be also. Men should have bright colors in their clothes, and women should dress in brown. It did not last.
The Late Middle Ages (1300-1453) saw a very great increase in attention to fashion, which grew more and more extreme as time went by. The old fashions, still derived from Rome, were replaced with new tailored clothes that fit the body closely. Trousers and jackets were for men, and dresses for women were more revealing of their figures. Working men and women wore clothes that were functional, and the women wore dresses with aprons and kerchiefs. Buttons came into use, as did lacing, allowing these changes. At this time, colors became even more important, and contrasts were so important that it became common for people to wear clothes with contrasting colors for legs of trousers. In addition to wool and linen, and silk for the wealthy, cotton came into use. Furs were commonly used, and rabbit fur was inexpensive and often worn for warmth. Shoes tended to be very long and pointed, which toes stuffed so they would hold their shape.
There are several links below to articles related to medieval clothing and fashion.
Who was ranked below a knight in the middle ages?
A squire would be below a knight and other lesser nobles.
Is the armor worn by knights bulletproof?
yes
-----
Sorry, no, the armor worn by knights is not bulletproof, unless the bullet has very low energy. In the Renaissance, when personal firearms first appeared, armorers made heavier armor than had been used, and tested it by a firing musket into it, with the dent being proof that the ball had not penetrated. The problem is that they were never able to make armor heavy enough to withstand the heaviest musket balls, without making it too heavy to be worn.
The mounted knights had long been in trouble before the introduction of gunpowder, because their armor was not arrow-proof. They were cut down by the hundreds when they charged against the English at Agencourt, and the thing that was most murderous was the English archers.
The Real Answer:
Yes: most of the high quality Milanese armours of the 15th/16th Century were bulletproof to a greater or lesser degree and these "harnesses" were of a comparible weight to the armour and equipment fielded by today's soldiers (50-70Kg)
At the time of Agincourt the reason why english archers were such an integral role in the battlewas not becuase the bodkin could pierce the armour (it couldn't) it was becuase the arrows killed the horses trapping the knights underneath the horse or leaving them to slog their way through the churned mud towards the english line.
Samurai in 16th-19th century Japan bought and maintained western style plate armour that was tameshi gusoku or bullet-tested armour with the last recorded use being in the 1877 satsuma rebellion.
Australian outlaw and folk hero Ned Kelly was famous for winning gun-fights against the police using his cobbled-together plate.
the reason for the decline in armour was more due to it being extremely expensive and the impossiblity of fielding a large force of steel clad Man-at-arms.
So yes Armour can provide protection from gunfire though I would point out that Steel Plate has NOT been tested against modern ballistics and I would advise you NOT to test it out for yourself.
AnswerIt, of course, depends on the time period. I'm assuming you are comparing armor to firearms available at the same time.Early firearms were notoriously inaccurate, slow to reload, and generally with poor ballistic characteristics. However, from the outset, they were able to easily penetrate contemporary chainmail armors at "reasonable" (50+ yard) distances. Shortly after their introduction in Europe (roughly mid 1400s), plate armor makers began to thicken breastplates and helms in an attempt to stay ahead of the increasing power of firearms.
For about a century or so after their introduction, the better-quality breastplates were "proofed" by firing bullets at them, to indicate their trustworthiness. So, YES, the better quality breastplates were bulletproof from a contemporary firearm, up until the early 1700s. However, none of the other plates of the armor suit (legs/arms/groin) recieved the same upgrading, as it required ever thicker armor to remain bulletproof. And, of course, armor made a few decades before would no longer remain bulletproof against the current generation firearms.
With increasing enhancements, particularly the introduction of the flintlock, the muzzle velocity of the bullet became too high to be able to protect against, unless one wore a suit so thick as to be impossible to move in.
Thus, there was a period of "qualified immunity" between 1450 and 1650 or so, in which time a current armor suit could stop a current-generation firearm's bullet if it hit the breastplate.
Oriental armors were of such construction as to never be reliably bulletproof against contemporary firearms, though, as noted above, they did import western-style solid breastplate armors well into the 1700s.
Ned Kelly's famous "bulletproof" armor wasn't real armor; rather, it was a 1/2 inch thick cast-iron plate that he wore over his chest only. It was more of a very primitive precursor to the modern-day flak vest than a suit of armor, and was so heavy and bulky as to be nothing more than a curiosity (certainly not something usable by an army).
Finally, the real reasons for the decline of personal armor was in fact the increasing effectiveness of firearms. By 1650, a flintlock smoothbore musket could reliably punch through any thickness of armor plate suit worn, at ranges over 100 yards. With the increasingly cheap production of a flintlock came firearms proliferation, meaning that armies were now being equipped with large fractions of firearms; against such massed firepower, an armored man could no longer be sufficiently protected to enable him to close to melee distance. That is, the range at which a firearm could reliably kill an armored opponent was much greater than melee weapon distance (or, even charging distance when mounted), so armor was no longer effective (and, being no longer effective, was abandoned). Cost had nothing to do with it - indeed, large armies of steel-clad soldiers had been fielded throughout the medieval period (over 600 years prior).
What are the duties of the knights?
The duties of a Knight included managing the parcel of land designated by the various fiefdoms as vassals, providing armsmen and military support to the ruling regent (the king) in times of war, defending the Christian faith, and killing pretty much anyone who crossed them (in the name of honor). Additionally they were expected to uphold the code of chivalry as well as respect higher ranking nobles and enforcing the code of law for each respective country.
What marked the ending of the Age of Knights?
Most people regard the Age of Knights ending because of the introduction of gun powder and muskets. The truth is, however, that the mounted knights were already on the way out when muskets were introduced. This was because of the Hundred Years' War, in which French knights were killed in the hundreds by archers equipped with English long bows. Such an archer could fire several arrows off in a minute, and the arrows, with points of hard steel, could penetrate the armor of a knight 200 or 300 yards off. This was devastating. The English army moved in the direction of having their knight on foot, instead of mounted, and using them to protect archers, who were very vulnerable in close fighting.
What did medieval knights use to stop their armour rusting?
Generally, it was steel and steel does not rust. I have never seen a suit of armour made of iron in any museum that I have visited.
--------------
First, steel most certainly *does* rust. You are probably thinking of stainless steel when you think of steel. (Point of fact, stainless steel can also rust and corrode over time, but because of its alloy it does so less frequently, hence the name "stain less.") However, stainless steel was not used in medieval armors (it didn't exist then!) Medieval steel was a high carbon steel that would rust very quickly if not treated.
Second, armor most certainly was made of iron prior to the development of steel.
Now, on to the original question...
Knights protected their armor through a variety of means, not all of which prevented it from rusting, but simply prevented it from rusting past a certain point. One of the more popular methods of protecting steel was known as "bluing," which is a technique that is still used today! The are two forms of bluing: hot and cold.
Hot bluing occurs when the surface of the steel is heated and then rapidly quenched instead of allowing it to cool slowly. ("Quenched" means to cool it by dipping it in water or oil.) The act of quenching also contributes to the ratio of hardness (brittleness) to flexibility the steel would have. There were a variety of methods depending on the quality of steel and how much temper you wanted it to have, and was something of an art form; you could ruin a perfectly good piece of steel if you weren't careful. But basically, the goal was to create a thin outer layer that was impregnated with oil that would wear away over time but would otherwise slow down the oxidation process that causes rust. The end process caused the steel to take on a bluish color, hence the name "bluing." However, bluing was not perfect; it would slow down rust, but not stop it. This meant you took very good care of your steel (or at least your servants, squire, page, etc. did) by cleaning, oiling, and polishing it with every use.
Cold bluing is a bit different. Instead of heat and oil, a chemical was used to cause the steel to rapidly rust. (For example, urine.) That's right, they intentionally caused the steel to rust, taking care to make sure that it rusted evenly. They would then rub oil into the rusty metal, let it rust some more, apply more oil, let it rust some more, and so forth. The end result was a very deep black or brown colored surface that basically helped slow down the rusting process. Like hot blued steel, you still had to take very obsessive care of your steel.
How do museums get away with not having to clean their armor and weapons all the time? Crystalline wax polish. It acts like a bluing, preventing oxygen and moisture from starting the oxidation process by sealing the surface of the steel. Since this steel is on display and not for use, it works pretty well. It also works well if the weapons must be handled for inspection or to be moved, as it can keep finger oils away from the surface of the steel.
One last note...the idea that knights all went around in head-to-toe bright, shiny, mirror-like armor, is pure fiction created by movies and television. Fully encased armor was extremely costly to make and few other than kings were wealthy enough to afford it. So much so that even kings would not take it into battle because it was too valuable! (Like taking your expensive sports car off-roading.) Hence, armors like this are more frequently known as "parade armor," because it was chiefly worn for ceremonial occasions or when you really wanted to impress a visiting dignitary with your wealth. Real armor consisted of various types of protective layers, usually a thick, quilted underlayer (to help protect against blunt force), a layer of riveted chain mail armor (never butt-ended like you see in modern reproduction mail; that stuff wouldn't last a single fight), and then in later periods, some kind of additional layer of steel plates, whether they would be riveted to a leather shell (Wisby plate or "brigandine"), a laid out in overlapping scales (lamellar), or anatomically formed pieces (cuirass, gorget, pauldrons, vambraces, couters, etc.) The exact type of armor the knight wore depended on what century he lived in, what region he came from, what kind of weapons he was likely to be facing, and most importantly, how poor he was! Just because you were knighted, didn't automatically make you rich; some knights received grants of land and title, others just received the honor of being knighted for valor or service to the king, but were still virtually paupers. This is one of the reasons why especially the poorer knights were eager to go to war, to not only earn further favor with their lords, but to potentially earn spoils of war.
Was William the marshall a templar?
Marshall was made a member of the Knights templar on his deathbed, and was buried in Temple Church, london.
however, he was not a templar during the time he was actually active as a knight.
It could be considered that his taking the templar's vows was fulfilment of a request from Henry the Younger, that Marshall go on crusade on his behalf, whereby Marshal also gave a vow to the Templars to end his days with them, a vow which he kept 30 years later.
