Talk:Knight/Archive 2

The assertion that ministeriales were always unfree, or are equivalent to servile knights, appears to be a confusion:

Language failed to make any clear distinction between these forms of service, so long as they were not included in the honourable category of knightly obligations. Artisans, domestic servants, messengers, estate managers, bailiffs in the lord's immediate circle - these were all comprised under a single head. The Latin of the charters (an international language) usually called them ministeriales; in French, they were known as sergents; in German Dienstmänner. (Bloch, p. 337, emphasis added).

There were servile and unservile ministeriales; and until the thirteenth century, there were serf knights. p.338, 341. I am therefore restoring the paragraphs summarizing this, and marking them disputed also. JCScaliger 05:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bloch incorrectly interprets the word ministerialis. There were no unservile German ministeriales. Read Benjamin Arnold, German Knighthood 1050-1300, pages 17-18:

" ... [I]t is clear that the type of German knight regularly called ministerialis in the Latin sources was being enfoeffed on a large schale in the eleventh century.

...

"The rules by which German lords controlled their retinues of knightly ministeriales resembe those relating to the vassalage of knights in France. But they differed from the French type in one important respect. Wheras French knights were free men constrained by the contractual nature of vassalage, German ministeriales were not free men, and their service was an ineluctable hereditary duty to the lord upon whose patrimony and into whose ownership they had been born. Both these versions of knightly service were undoubtly descended from late_Carolingian prototypes, but the direct evidence is lost."

Arnold's book is entirely about the ministeriales, and if you want to become familiar with them, I suggest that you read it.Larry Dunn 05:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This does not contradict the passage removed; it is expressly limited to Germany, and says ministeriales could be free elsewhere, as they were - at least sometimes. If Larry Dunn wants to write an article on German knighthood out of Arnold, he should do so. If not, he should look for sources that cover the range of the article. JCScaliger 19:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at him; the present text gives undue weight to German developments; ministeriales was used across Europe. My edit should have made clearer that serjeant was the original sense of the word, before it bedame another hereditary, and largely serf, class. (I would avoid all of "free", "unfree", and "servile" as far as possible; serfs are not chattel slaves.) JCScaliger 22:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the recent social class section -- as the introduction indicates, the entire article is about (or is meant to be about) what is a social class, so a single section on this is not really appropriate. I think the article can definitely be made much stronger in a sequential history of the knight's social class, but a single section on it doesn't really work.

Particularly not a section which deals, primarily, with Ministeriales, and especially if that section incorrectly equates those German unfree knights with sergeants and the like, which Ministeriales were not (they were knights, and were always called such, as B. Arnold indicates, and held foeffs and allods). Furthermore, there's no need for a long discussion of Ministeriales, particularly one using a source as creaky as Bloch, when there is already an entire article on Ministerialis. Larry Dunn 05:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back from your 3RR block; I am glad to see discussion. Perhaps we will eventually see an effort at compromise. This is a wiki, not a blog.

A shame this entire edit war did not begin with discussion.Larry Dunn 21:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The intro to this article distinguishes three branches of the subject, not one: "The history of knighthood involves, therefore, the history of (1) the social institution, which began somewhat differently in the various European regions; the history (2) of the word, and the corresponding terms in French and Latin; and the history of the (3) technology which made heavy cavalry possible."

That's a description of the history of knighthood (and not a terribly good one) -- not a description of the article topic. The article starts with:

Knight is the English term for a social position originating in the Middle Ages. Knighthood is a non-heritable (with a few rare exceptions) form of gentility, but not of nobility. In the High and Late Middle Ages, the principal duty of a knight was to fight as, and lead, heavy cavalry (see serjeanty); more recently, knighthood has become a symbolic title of honour given to a more diverse class of people, from mountain climber Edmund Hillary to musician Paul McCartney.

Being a knight has meant different things at different times, but it has always been a social status. Ergo the entire article is (or should be -- it's quite muddled) a history of the social institution, which meant different things at different times (first elite landed warrior status, next low nobility, finally in some cultures notables recognized by the crown with an honorific).Larry Dunn 21:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a good paragraph on (2); Larry Dunn's section is a very useful contribution to (3). His brief divagation into (2) is redundant; his discussion of (1) is insufficient and inaccurate.

The description of the usage Miles is not offered, and should not be seen, as a history of the word -- it is placed in its historical context, as the end of the transition to armoured mounted combat is the same period in which knights obtain exclusive use of the word.

The discussion of (1) is sufficient and accurate with respect to knights, to the extent necessary -- it is important to note that, upon the establishment of the class, some knights were free, others not, and I have posted sources to indicate that this is so, and the likely origin of the status of unfree knights.Larry Dunn 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Arnold should not be used as sole source on ministeriales; Arnold concentrates his attention on Germany, on knighthood, and on the period between Henry IV and Henry VII, but there are many ministeriales outside those limits. He says so in the quote above and elsewhere, contrasting the ones he is interested in with others. The article has the same flaw; but one effort at rewriting at a time. JCScaliger 19:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing the issue here. We don't care about the ministeriales "outside of those limits." This is an article about knights, so the article makes reference to the knights who were unfree -- the ministeriales -- in context to which of the original knights were free and which were not. We are not concerned with sergeants, or ministeriales who were not knights. They are outside the subject matter. If you want to point out certain facts about ministeriales, perhaps the aricle on Ministeriales is a better place to do it.

Nevertheless, what is said (and Larry Dunn has reverted saying nothing) should be correct. JCScaliger 03:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Arnold's book is the current authoritative work on the ministeriales (even the Germans use it -- see the German wiki article on them), so of course it is perfectly appropriate to base whatever rudimentary discussion of ministeriales is in the Knight article (and not much is needed -- there is a separate article) on his work. He writes on the unfree knights called ministeriales. As this article is about knights, his subject matter is all we care about.Larry Dunn 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides these atopical issues, there are some serious factual issues with the Social Class paragraph as well.

• Ministeriales were in fact heavy cavalry -- they were completely indistingusihable from free knights.
• They were socially acceptable as knights and were referred to as miles -- they were simply unfree
• Ministeriales in Germany did not become serfs, they always were serfs. And it was only in Germany (and other parts of the Empire, such as in the Low Countries) where one finds knights called ministeriales
• Sergeants were completely different from the knightly ministeriales -- they were largely free and non-knightly. German ministeriales were unfree and knights. There is no need to discuss sergeants in this article, except perhaps in beefed-up tactical/combat sections, as they were military support troops for knights.
  • None of these statements is true outside Germany or before the High Middle Ages (see quotes below). One of them is, as phrased, even contrary to Arnold on German ministeriales. Arnold also says he does not know their origin. How Larry Dunn does is beyond me. JCScaliger 23:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This statement of "JCScaliger" demonstrates an apparent misunderstanding of the text I posted in Origins of Medieval Knighthood to describe the unfree knights, which reads:

Most of these earliest knights were freemen, but some of the ancient Germanic comitatus troops appear to have been unfree. Possible evidence of this is the survival, perhaps via the Carolingian elite Scara bodyguards, of unfree knighthood in Germany until the thirteenth century.

This does not in any way assert a definite origin, and the possibilities have already been sourced (to Arnold and Delbruck)

ON a related issue, "JCScaliger" maintains that Arnold does not know the origins of the Ministeriales, claims that I have made definite assertions of their origin, but then goes on in his own added text to state:

Lords did, however, have unfree servants, and made knights out of them sometimes; in Germany, around 1200, the juridically unfree knights became so common that the word "serving-man" (Dienstmann, ministerialis) was appropriated to them:

My emphasis. This passage asserts a definite origin for ministeriales. How "JCScaliger" knows this is beyond me.Larry Dunn 20:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It asserts that some unfree men were made knights, as Arnold attests (p. 38, and elsewhere). Whether those unfree situations were ancestral to the ministeriales is not asserted. JCScaliger 06:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But I have rephrased. JCScaliger 17:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Because so much material that is extraneous to an article on Knights is in the Social Class section, I am going to mark it as needing clean-up. I've also delinked Knighthood and the Feudal System from it. Larry Dunn 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Larry Dunn 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I therefore propose the following outline; based on the present sections; several of these could use modification or retitling:

Intro

• Etymology
• Medieval heavy cavalry
  • Origins of European Knighthood
  • The medieval institution
• Becoming a Knight

  Or this could be a subsection of the next grand section

• The social institution
  • Knighthood and the Feudal system

    This needs remodeling, and some of it should go in the next section, or the indicated main article.

  • Chivalric code
  • Great Britain

    On the importation of knighthood

• Orders of Knights
  • Military-monastic orders
  • Chivalric orders
  • Honorific orders
• Modern ranks
  • Hereditary knighthoods in Great Britain
• Literature
• See also
• External links

Comments? JCScaliger 19:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Reworking this article will be a major job, one I can't devote sufficient time to even considering. this is a very good point.

But it makes the most sense to follow the basic chronological history of the institution, with a discussion of what knights did, and what knighthood meant, in each period. Obviously the Middle Ages was the heyday of the knight, so much attention should be paid to that period.

Something like:

• Intro
• Etymology
• Origins of European Knighthood
• Knighthood in the Middle Ages
  • Becoming a Knight
  • Knighthood and the Feudal system
  • Chivalric code
  • Orders of Knights
  • Military-monastic orders
  • Chivalric orders
  • The Knight in Medieval Warfare
• Knighthood in the Early Modern Period
  • Knighthood in Transition
  • Becoming a Knight
  • The Knight in the Early Modern Economy
  • The Knight in Early Modern Warfare
• Knighthood in the Modern World
  • Hereditary knighthoods in Great Britain
  • Honorific orders
• Parallels in Other Cultures
• Literature
• See also
• External linksLarry Dunn 21:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the words of the intro quoted above, and I certainly intended them to lead to a division of topics, in part because the social class came into being after the heavy cavalry and has survived it. (And also to deal with the loud claims that Sassanid heavy cavalry was the origin of knighthood; what happened to that section?) Septentrionalis 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I append some quotations, largely from Arnold. JCScaliger 23:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• "[t]he label ministerialis only prevailed as the scribal norm over several other descriptions over several other descriptions for the same sort of person quite lste in the day, at the beginning of the twelfth century. So we are left in the twilight as to whom precisely we should be pursuing through the eleventh-century evidence." Arnold, p. 30

• "The word ministerialis prevailed" over other descriptions of the same sort of person "at the beginning of the twelfth century...the word already had a long history, and certainly did not originate as a description as a description for knight.. It is found in late Latin as a term for an official of Roman emperors, and was used in a parallel sense by Carolingian and Ottonian scribes. In that age it referred not to legal status or military function, but simply to office, service, or ministerium of all kinds. Bishops and counts were called ministeriales..." Arnold, loc. cit.

  Nor was this the only sense, either in post-classical or medieval Latin.

  • It is a common translation of "ministering spirits" (Hebrews, 1,14); and the oldest usage is from Irenaeus 3, 11, 8. his vero qui in Lege sacerdotalem et ministerialem actum praebebat [Dominus], which the Ante-Nicene Fathers series translates as liturgical; minister is LL for "deacon, church official below prebyster" (Souter, Glossary of LL0
  • The principal medieval sense is "household servant", as early as Rothari (Niermeyer, Med. Lat. Lex. minus.) This naturally includes court officials, as household servants of the Emperor.

• "serviens, a widely used alternate description." Arnold, 23
  • Sergent is the French form of serviens; Serjeant the English. OED, under "sergeant".

• Ministeralis "was never the excluse property of the exalted. Of old it referred to service-relationships and to the exercise of offices, not to any particular legal status. So the early seources also used it to depict lowly servants, as in Charlemagne's capitulary De villis ir in Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims' celebrated De ordinis palatii. A royal gift of lands to the archbishops of Salzburg included this sort of ministerialis among the appurtenances...use for manorial and household servants....ministeriales or bailiffs." This died out (in Germany). Arnold 31-2

• Ministeriales were legally unfree. "But nearly all the legal and social restraints and restrictions upon m. were, in their functioning, reminiscent of vassalage, and had little in common with the yoke of serfdom. Nevertheless, in Germany the strong ties of personal and hereditary dependence which bound m. to their lords were held to constitute a type of proprietary right, a ius proprietatis, under which the lords were owners of their ministeriales, who thus had servile status." Arnold 25

• There were also free vassal-knights, who probably had patrimonies substantial enough to be able to insist on offering homage as free men. Arnold, 18. (not exact).

• "Both these versions of knightly service undoubtedly descend from late-Carolingian prototype, but the direct evidence is lost" Arnold 18

• "[T]he social origins of [German knightly] ministeriales as a new knighthood are perplexing. p. 249; in the same paragraph Arnold speculates on free and unfree possibilities.
  • The institutional antecedents of these ministeriales are unclear; they "cannot unequivocally be derived from any of" the comparable situtations involving support of retinues by hereditary fiefs. p.38
  • All the efforts to find their genealogical origins are "speculation". p.41.

In short:

• ministeriales were only unfree knights in Germany, and there only in the High Middle Ages; elsewhere and elsewhen, ",inisteriales" means "servitor" in general, ranking both higher and lower than knighthood.
• ministeriales were often free outside this same narrow patch.
• There came to be a class of unftee knights to which the Germans, only, confined the term; but
• There is very little evidence of their origins. Arnold conjectures, p.249-50, that they arose in the 10th century, and were then bound; but the point is unknowable.
• Serjeant is the English for ministerialis in general; they came, as stated, to be different things in England, France, and Germany.

If Mr. Dunn would stop insisting on a single local meaning, we could probably reach a meeting of the minds; Niermeyer gives eight.JCScaliger 23:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"JCScaliger" misunderstands the context of the term as I used it. My reference:

Most of these earliest knights were freemen, but some of the ancient Germanic comitatus troops appear to have been unfree. Possible evidence of this is the survival, perhaps via the Carolingian elite Scara bodyguards, of unfree knighthood in Germany until the thirteenth century. These unfree knights were called ministeriales and dominated the institution of German knighthood.

Note that the passage nevers asserts that these unfree (German) knights are the only people in the history of mankind to have ever been called Ministeriales, nor that these unfree German knights were only called Ministeriales, nor that they were never called anything else. "JCScaliger's" misunderstanding of this passage seems to be the root of this entire debate. The use of the term ministeriales is used here with respect to the only people relevant to this article -- Knights. Larry Dunn 20:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that 1) the redundant information in Social Class be deleted, 2) the information relating to ministerialis in particular be moved to the article on that subject, and 3) the rest of the information be moved to the Knight and the Feudal System section.

It would be simpler to remove the earlier misleading reference. This would save documenting the claim that the ministeriales are evidence for anything Carolingian, which Arnold denies. JCScaliger 06:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's actually simpler to remove the superfluous section. The reference to the social status of knights at the founding of the class is more appropriate in the origins section, just as the reference to later medieval, and modern, social status is more appropriate in those sections.Larry Dunn 18:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No discussion contra, so I have removed the Section -- it employed virtually identical language used in other sections, and was little more than a garbage-pail section as drafted.Larry Dunn 04:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed the section again, contra revert by "JCScaliger" -- the section is either redundant or contains irrelevant or untrue assertions. Following is a line by line rationale, as that seems to be necessary. (Bold text is rationale.)

Social class

European knighthood became an aristocracy, rather then a profession, because of Charlemagne's benefices. (Untrue -- the establishment of the knightly class of aristocrats was not due to Charlemagne's benefices. It evolved over the next century and a half or even longer.) In the century or so following Charlemagne’s death, his newly enfeoffed warrior class grew stronger still, and Charles the Bald declared their fiefs to be hereditary. (Redundant. See article.) On the other hand, it came to be law and custom that a man could not be knighted unless he was descended from knights. (Redundant. See article.) The resulting hereditary, landed class of mounted elite warriors, the knights, were increasingly seen as the only true soldiers of Europe; which explains the use of miles. (Redundant. See article.)

Legal status

The line between freedom and unfreedom was not as sharp in the Middle Ages as in modern times (or classical antiquity). Almost everyone was bound in some fashion; almost everyone had some "liberties" or privileges. Most of the earliest knights were freemen, but some of the ancient Germanic comitatus troops appear to have been unfree; and some of the early forms of vassalage appear to have been counted as unfreedom under the Carolingians; the term itself derives from vassus, "serf" or "slave".[2] (This text is not relevant to an article specifically about knights. It may be of more use in a more general article on feudalism or early medieval european society. Placing it into an (already long) article on knights introduces information of at most marginal relevance.)

Most knights, in most places, secured good and honourable terms from their lords; in French, lands held by military service were the original freeholds (franc-fiefs). Lords did, however, have unfree servants, and some of these were knights; in Germany, around 1200, juridically unfree knights became so common that the word "serving-man" (Dienstmann, ministerialis) was appropriated to them. Their lords had a property right over these German knights, but their relationship was closer to that of vassalage elsewhere than to the bondage of serfs. As knighthood became ever more of a rank, and eventually a legally recognized nobility, the tension between unfree and knightly status became intolerable, and unfree knighthood was abolished (or became unenforceable), both in Germany and elsewhere.[3] (This is arguably topical to the article on Ministeriales, not to a general article on knights.)Larry Dunn 16:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If we mention the ministeriales at all, we should be accurate; I have tried not mentioning them, and been reverted. JCScaliger 20:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of the scara were unfree, says Delbrueck, but "it can neither be proven nor assumed" that unfree status was "the significant trait" of the scara; abstractly [i.e., by definition] it is not true that they were unfree. III, p. 54. I'm not sure whether this is editing by memory, or by google search; both can lead to serious trouble unless one checks one's sources while editing. I've done it myself. JCScaliger 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've marked the passage still in dispute here. Reading Delbrück, I don't see that the connection with the ministeriales is anywhere near as strong as this passage makes it out to be; and I was surpised by his actual words, coming from a statement that the scara was unfree. Would the two of you settle for "many of the members of the scara"? Septentrionalis 19:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Delbruck also says on that same page ... "whereas the men of the scara were a much larger number of common fighting men, natually in large part unfree men, the successors of the pueri (boys) of the Merovingian Period and the predecessors of the ministeriales of the following centuries." He then goes on to say that they are not identical, which of course the article does not claim either, as the men of the scara were not by definition unfree, which the ministeriales were.

JCScaliger's assertion to the contrary, Arnold does indeed suggest unfree military service in the carolingian period as a possible origin of the Ministeriales, on page 18 of his book. Delbruck's description of the Scara as the predecessors of the Ministeriales, and Arnold's similar suggestion as to their origin, is enough to support the assertion in the article, which is not definitive. Larry Dunn 21:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Arnold dismisses all suggestions more definite than than some connection with late Carolingian vassalage as speculation. Delbrueck's discussion is linked to, and cited, above; he treats the ministeriales as parallel, not derivative. JCScaliger 22:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Can "JCScaliger" give the exact quote for the above? Arnold dismisses nothing. What he does say of the Carolingian period is, "It is, nevertheless, worth reviewing the early material, because it leaves the impression that magnates were familiar with fitting out unfree dependents as cavalrymen on a temporary or permanent basis." P. 38. He then goes on to give examples of Carolingian types, including "We are told that the servientes "whom we call scaremanni" were expected, like other members of his retinue, to fight as knights for the abbot of St. Maximin at Trier." p. 39. And as cited above, Delbruck cites the Scara as predecessors of the ministeriales.

In any event, if "JCScaliger" believes that "Arnold dismisses all suggestions more definite than than some connection with late Carolingian vassalage as speculation," what does this lead him to conclude? The only unfree troops serving as armoured cavalry in Carolingian armies were the Scarae.Larry Dunn 02:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Both these versions of knightly service undoubtedly descend from late-Carolingian prototype, but the direct evidence is lost". p.18 See also the extended discussion of German theories on the origins of the ministeriales, pp. 38-41. These suggested both free and unfree origins, but Arnold dismisses all of them as speculation. JCScaliger 23:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not dismissal as speculation, it is a clarification that there is no decisive proof, which the article also does not claim. Note that Arnold then goes on to show a reference to Scara(manni) as a possible early reference to Ministeriales. I again invite "JCScaliger" to give the direct quote in which Arnold "dismisses as speculation" all attempts to find early roots of the Ministeriales in unfree knights of the Carolingian period -- which he is unlikely to be able to do, as Arnold then goes on to attempt exactly that -- showing references to troops who may be Ministeriales in late Carolingian sources.Larry Dunn 19:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not unless the late Carolingians have migrated into the time of Henry III, which is the date given in footnote 86 for the only one of these examples Arnold even suggests might be "embryonic" ministeriales. JCScaliger 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You have still not provided the direct quote which indicates that Arnold dismisses as speculation all attempts to find early roots of the Ministeriales in unfree knights of the Carolingian period, so your edit is unjustified and has been reverted.Larry Dunn 04:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

See next section. JCScaliger 13:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

These are parallels, not ancestors.

"The question of origins is controversial because the surviving evidence is too thin to provide very satisfactory answers." [digression on German approaches to the problem, one drawback to which is]

"ministeriales unfree status and knightly function about 1100 were not very much like the realities of the ninth and tenth centuries....There were of course, technical similarities realting to the maintenance of military retinues common to the whole medieval period. The precedent for enodowing ministeriales with a hereditary economic base does go back to the Carolingians, when vassals were given fiefs in exchange for services. Surviving the economic recession of the fourteenth century, the method still governed the relationship of magnates and knights in many parts of fifteenth century Germany. In this sense, the function and status of ministeriales can fairly be compared with similar situations dating as far back as the eighth century. But the ministeriales cannot unequivocally be derived from any of them.

And if the article unequivocally stated a derivation, you may have a point. Neither this cite, nor the ones you set forth below, negate Arnold's own investigation of the Carolingian/Ottonian sources to find roots for the Ministeriales. To delete a reference to the possible origin of the M. in the Scara or other Carolingian force would require some firm evidence that the M. evolved in toto in late Ottonian or early Hohenstaufen forces, which contradicts both Delbrueck and Arnold.Larry Dunn 04:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The search for institutional antecedents has tended to project backwards to the ninth century a concept of ministeriales' service which then slowly came to fruition in the eleventh. This fundamental confusion in eliding the rise of knighthood as a new social phenomenon in eleventh-century beudal Europe including [but not limited to] the German empire. It is nevertheless worth reviewing the early material, because it leaves the impression that magnates were familiar with fitting out dependents as cavalrymen on a temporary or permanent basis.

The list of examples is long. The only mention of scara' is in this passage, where they were neither imperial, nor Carolingian - nor, strictly, ministeriales:

...tributarii at Constance, fiscalini servi at Worms, clientes at Petershausen, and equites at Regensburg. We are told that the servientes 'whom we call scaremanni ' were expected, like other members of his retinue, to fight as knights for the abbot of St Maximin at Trier. If these scaremanni look like embryonic ministeriales, the rest of the monastery's servientes and scaremanni do not.' In the twelfth century St Maximin still possessed ministri vel scaremanni who were distinct from the other ministeriales of the abbey."

The other mention of ministeriales are monastic examples from 1033 to 1075, which "can be taken to reveal ways in which the Church recruited ministeriales in the eleventh century." ...

"Analogies have been drawn between the administrative offices exercised later by ministeriales and the employment in the tenth century of seignurial dependents in the running of estates and households. [examples from the eleventh century] Evidence from Bavaria shows, however, that such appointments were not always leading their beneficiaries towards the rank of ministerialis" [examples from the tenth and eleventh centuries].

"These examples show, indeed, that unfree dependents with fiefs to support did indeed carry out military and administrative functions for their lords. But they hardly add up to a structure upon which the knighthood of the later eleventh and twelfth centuries can be based. Rather the model for ministeriales was vassalage, as the Bamburg code from the 1060s...[comparison with Italy]

"The quest for genalogical origins...Some scholars have preferred to derive the ministeriales from the free social classes...But the majority derive their descent from the unfree. These speculations founder upon the inconclusive nature of the evidence. There are in any case difficulties in making clear distinctions between free and unfree social groups in medieval Germany. We know for example...."

In short, nothing Carolingian, nothing imperial, nothing Merovingian, and all the examples, which are 10th century and mostly later, are cited as parallels and analogues, like the fifteenth century knights in the first extract. Conjecture is not impossible; as genealogical conjecture is not impossible; but it is speculation. JCScaliger 22:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to rudely interject, but it seems this debate over the scope of the article in reference to Ministeriales and their place in history has been under some consideration for quite some time, with much controversy arising over interpretations of a work identified presumably by it's author's last name: "Arnold". Perhaps it would be wise to try to find other sources outside "Arnold" that provide more support for either argument. This does, of course, assume that Arnold is not the only critical work on Knighthood, which it may be. Also, I think "Arnold" should at least appear in the Literature section on the article - since I have no idea what it is, would one of you mind adding it there? It appears to be a very comprehensive and important work in this area and something often referenced in the reframing of this specific article. -- Xiliquiern 23:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Done; Benjamin Arnold: German Knighthood 1050-1300. An excellent book, but which does not extend beyond its title. At the moment Larry Dunn is citing this text for a position it does not support. JCScaliger 00:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, JCScaliger is at present conflating the failure to find conclusive evidence of a connection, with a prohibition against any speculation, which the author does not so "prohibit" because he engages in it himself. If the author (Benjamin Arnold) felt that there was no basis for investigating a connection between late Carolingian soldier-types and the Ministeriales, he would not bother to cite examples of possible antecedents at length, which he in fact does.

Arnold does not speculate on sources, he discusses examples that "magnates were familiar with fitting out dependents as cavalrymen" (p.40). The two instances in which he suggests that these examples may have something to do with the ministeriales themselves are both from the eleventh century, as are most of them. (He also discusses parallels from the fifteenth century; does Larry Dunn suppose these are specuklations on origins too?) JCScaliger 13:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that the single line in the article that this interminable debate centers around says what Arnold and Delbrueck both posit -- that the Ministeriales may have had their roots in late Carolingian sources, such as the Scara. (Delbruek actually goes farther -- he calls the unfree men of the Scara the "predecessors of the Ministeriales" -- though then goes on to point out that the Scara and the Ministeriales are not identical, which the article also does not indicate). Arnold gives a citation of the use of the term Scaremanni in an Ottonian source, which if anything furthers the suggestion that the Ministeriales may have evolved from certain elements of Carolingian Scara forces.Larry Dunn 04:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Delbrueck denies expressly that they are identical; they are instances of a class of largely unfree fighting men, in which he also places Merovingian pueri. Arnold's scaremanni are quoted above. They are not imperial; he does not suggest that they are evolved from imperial forces; and he makes clear that they did evolve into something "distinct from" the same abbey's later ministeriales. Please read what the source actually says. JCScaliger 13:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The article does not say that they are identical.Larry Dunn 16:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of sourced text is deprecated; this edit is therefore undesirable. When Larry Dunn decides what passage of Arnold actually supports his fantasiesillusions, he should add a footnote, preferably quoting the actual sentences. JCScaliger 13:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

However, I have added what Arnold will support, with direct quotations. JCScaliger 13:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of sourced text is not "deprecated" if the "sourced text" is irrelevant or redundant. See the discussion of removal of the social class section above -- an attempt was made to discuss this but was ignored by "JCScaliger" when first proposed a week or two ago, but that user then went on to revert the deletion once made. I have now provided a line by line annotation of why that section was deleted.

As an aside, personal insults, such as suggesting that a user's positions are "fantasies," are deprecated and should be avoided. They also support the suggestion that the user's edits are part of a personal vendetta rather than an attempt to make the article stronger.Larry Dunn 16:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Larry Dunn has persistently reverted sourced text without explanation. He has no explanation for his desire now. His deletion of sourced text is as undesireable as his persistent insistance of a possibility (which is certainly possible, but so are many other possibilities.) But I can change "fantasies" to "illusions"; they are certainly not visible on any page Larry Dunn has yet cited; perhaps he can quote exact texts this time? JCScaliger 17:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The following text has been removed, for the sake of peace. Some parts of it may be useful to a future editor; such an editor should be careful of the bone of contention, which appears to be suggestions that the ministeriales derived from particular prior institutions. On the other hand, the etymology of vassus may be useful.

The line between freedom and unfreedom was not as sharp in the Middle Ages as in modern times (or classical antiquity). Almost everyone was bound in some fashion; almost everyone had some "liberties" or privileges. Most of the earliest knights were freemen, but some of the ancient Germanic comitatus troops appear to have been unfree; and some of the early forms of vassalage appear to have been counted as unfreedom under the Carolingians; the term itself derives from vassus, "serf" or "slave".^[1]

Most knights, in most places, secured good and honourable terms from their lords; in French, lands held by military service were the original freeholds (franc-fiefs). Lords did, however, have unfree servants, and some of these were knights; in Germany, around 1200, juridically unfree knights became so common that the word "serving-man" (Dienstmann, ministerialis) was appropriated to them. Their lords had a property right over these German knights, but their relationship was closer to that of vassalage elsewhere than to the bondage of serfs. They were a "new social formation", which may have originated in some such class, although "they cannot be unequivocally derived from any of them" - or by the voluntary binding of freemen. It is certainly possible that they derived from the scara, and equally possible they did not. the evidence is "too thin to be conclusive". ^[2]

As knighthood became ever more of a rank, and eventually a legally recognized nobility, the tension between unfree and knightly status became intolerable, and unfree knighthood was abolished (or became unenforceable), both in Germany and elsewhere.^[3]

I am more or less in the middle on this; I would not shout, as above; on the other hand, these sources, as cited here, are not particularly good support for the suggestion Dunn wants. They do not appear to draw it explicitly, and WP:NOR is quite narrow. Anything's possible, especially in a period so ill-documented as the 11th century; but I would not have insisted against opposition. Septentrionalis 15:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Three points.

1) That was not the only language deleted for the sake of peace. The reference to the ministeriales was also deleted. Perhaps you should cite that language too for the benefit of future editors.

I attempted to copy your removal edit. If I missed something, by all means add it here. Septentrionalis 20:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

2) I did not cite those sources in those footnotes as support for the contention that the Scariti may have been the precursers of the ministeriales. These were, if I recall, actually cited by "JCScaliger" to support the opposite conclusion. I relied primarily on Delbrueck, and on some very general comments made by Arnold, to suggest the link. (It was not my original research.) Delbrueck had arguments with other German historians about the connection, so hedges his language by the time he sits down th write his four volume history, and even Delbrueck does not suggest a clean derivation, but he does float the general notion of a possible evolution.

Please read WP:NOR. Arnold and Delbrueck would certainly be a reasonable citation for a scholarly paper, but our definition is much tighter. Briefly, neither the page you cite from Delbrueck nor the selections from Arnold say so. Septentrionalis 20:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Delbrueck specifically says that the Scarae were the predecessors of the Ministeriales, and then goes on to point out differences between himself and other historians concerning the degree to which one can draw a direct connection (he hedges -- it was an old argument, apparently).

Quoting Mirriam Webster on predecessor:

1 : one that precedes; especially : a person who has previously occupied a position or office to which another has succeeded

That supports the statement that the Scarae are one possible origin of the Ministeriales, and is not original research.Larry Dunn 17:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

3) I would contend that various elements of the deleted language you cite above are either in the article already, or are not especially appropriate for an article specifically on knights, but would be better placed in an article on freedom as opposed to unfree status in the Early and High Middle Ages, or social structure of Europe, or Feudalism -- any more than an extended discussion of the development of the lance would be appropriate for this article on the Knight, even though the lance was his prime weapon on horseback. It appeared to me, and still does, that the social class language was being inserted in the article by "JCScaliger" in response to the debate over what was basically a minor reference to ministeriales in the origins section. Eventually it occurred to me that the article would be better served by just removing the reference to ministeriales altogether, just as, if an endless edit war over the development of the lance flared up, with lots of text on the lance being inserted as a result, it would be more prudent to delete a minor reference to the lance altogether, for the sake of the article.

This comes back, I think, to the basic question on format, unresolved above. Septentrionalis 20:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In any event, I will probably author an article on the Scariti sometime in the not-too-distant future, and we can have the argument all over again.  :-> Larry Dunn 16:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make controversial claims there either. Septentrionalis 20:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to there, just as I haven't here. Unless of course you mean statements that you disagree with, which is simply begging the question. It takes two to have a controversy.Larry Dunn 17:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not bolded on my computer, although this appears to be an aspect of skin; but I replaced semi-colons with colons, as intended. Oops. JCScaliger 16:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Damehood deserves to be given a separate article,as it is the feminine equivilant of knighthood. - (203.211.74.39 08:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

What should David Furnish be called since he has married Elton John, then surely he should be called sir David Furnish, al a Lady McCartney. Franz-kafka 19:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They're not married, they're civil partners, and titles only transfer through marriage. He's "David Furnish", just as he was before. Proteus (Talk) 19:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

While it is a shame that civil partnerships are treated as a second-class form of marriage, even if they could marry, men do not usually derive courtesy titles from their spouses. The husbands of Dames are not called Sir for instance. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

on becoming a knight

it says SEAN WAS HERE!!!

i can't delete it!!! Josephseagullstalin 04:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

etymology means your booty stank you herd me and lil wayne and jay z are the greatest rappers is there, and I can't get rid of it.--65.24.61.74 05:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)-STRodgers

Sometime you have to refresh the page to get the new version. Goldfritha 18:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As a reader I would prefer to see separate articles on the two senses of the word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.154.38.231 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Not separable; the mediaeval institution was always a rank, not merely a type of armament, and knighthoods for the non-military began before knighthood as heavy cavalry ceased to exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this example still valid, since he and his wife divorced?

I'd like to say something about this, but I'm not sure of my facts.

• (a) There's no reason why a clergyman can't be knighted (and many have been), but I understand it's normal practice for them not to receive the accolade, and not to refer to themselves as Sir Whoever. Thus, Cardinal Norman Gilroy should not be referred to as "Cardinal Sir Norman Gilroy KBE", but as "Cardinal Norman Gilroy KBE" etc. I note that James Cardinal Freeman is not called Sir in his article, merely James Darcy Freeman KBE. But Frank Little gets "Sir Frank". This all seems somewhat inconsistent – or maybe editors are simply assuming a knighthood automatically means "Sir". I also note an exception was made for Sir Paul Reeves, but this seems to have been a mistake rather than anything intentional.
• (b) Does this mean that a knight is not entitled to be called Sir until they receive the accolade? For example, if a knighthood for Robbie Williams was announced in the Queens Birthday Honours in June 2007, but the formal investiture ceremony did not take place till October 2007, is he entitled to be known as "Sir Robert" (or whatever) in the June-October period? I remember there was a big fuss when Arthur C Clarke was knighted in 1998. The Prince of Wales' plans to go to Sri Lanka to formally invest him were postponed after allegations of pedophilia were aired, and there was confusion as to whether Clarke should have been referred to as Sir Arthur from the moment of the announcement, or had to wait for the accolade. He was eventually invested in 2000 - so, does that mean he became a knight only in 2000, not in 1998 when the formal announcement was made? JackofOz 09:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

a) Paul Reeves entry says: Unlike clergyman in the UK who do not received the accolade and title Sir when knighted, member(sic) of clergy outside the UK do use the pre-nominal Sir. I can't find a citation to support such a claim and doubt it can stand uncited. Certainly UK clergy do not get dubbed at all. - Only clergy who are baronets or who were knighted prior to ordination could use 'Sir'. As to (b) you can now use it when announced long before you gain the accolade - since the1970s iirc. Alci12 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(a) About the clergy: I am as certain as I could be without having been at his investiture that Norman Cardinal Gilroy did receive the accolade and is rightly called Sir Norman. I don't know about James Cardinal Freeman, except that there are reference on the internet to him as "Sir James".

I think the comment that clergy outside the UK do use the title Sir is wrong. I think the difference is whether they are Anglican or not. I'm not sure about the Church of Scotland. But I think the Sovereign really cares about the Church of England, and hence other Anglican Churches, because it is the established Church in England. The same would logically apply to the Church of Scotland. I am fairly certain that clergy of other Churches are premitted the accolade and the title Sir. I remember reading this in a Debrett's style guide where it specifically gave the example of "His Eminence Sir Norman Cardinal Gilroy, KBE". Why Reeves was given the accolade nobody seems to know. There is a very curious thing about the Prime Minister of New Zealand having made him (i.e. recommended him to the Governor General acting on behalf of the Queen) a Knight Bachelor at the same time as he was made a GCMG in order to spare the Queen the trouble of refusing to give him the accolade. But I think that the right explanation is the one I was given - namely, that he was given the accolade by mistake and that once conferred nobody liked to take it away from him. There are certainly other overseas Anglican clergy who are not called Sir.

(b) Knights and dames use the title Sir or Dame and the postnominal letters, if any, as soon as the honour has been announced. Members of orders who are not knights or dames use the letters. A peer uses his or her title when the patent of creation has passed the Great Seal.--Oxonian2006 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Belated thanks for those comprehensive replies. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems like every edit by an anonymous IP has been vandalism. This looks to be a continuing problem, that won't go away anytime soon (if ever). Might it be possible to get the article semi-protected? I'm just sayin'. :) --Ebyabe 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A great idea. How do we go about doing this? Perhaps anonymous editors can be allowed to post revisions here, and if they are seen to be good faith, they can be added by a signed-in user? I'd be happy to do it. Larry Dunn 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Looked into it and the process was easier than I thought. I put in a request for page protection. Keep the fingers crossed! --Ebyabe 18:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we should try getting this page semi-protected too. *sigh* --Ebyabe 20:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was easy; the article is semi-protected now. Hurrah! --Ebyabe 12:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, ebyabe, that saves us all a lot of work. Larry Dunn 21:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it is unprotected again. I'll re-sprotect, since the level of anon vandalism is really obstructive. dab (𒁳) 08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The continual repetition between the sections is really getting on ym nerves. Pople just pop in and think "hey they never talked about this!" and just add the same stuff, without even reading the article. I think this needs a MAJOR rewrite, with lots of cutting for each section. CJ DUB 03:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

it does need quite some cleanup, yes. This is a very difficult subject to write a good article about, being many-faceted and difficult to lay out cleanly. Feel free to help. I think we have much of the required material collected now, it just needs intelligent re-arrangement, and some additional angles, in particular literary. dab (𒁳) 08:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I dispute every single unsourced statement in this article, and in acordance with wikipedia policy, i will add an unreferneced tag to the top of the page. ∆ Algonquin 08:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please add hu:Lovag. Thanks. --Koppany 08:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

is there any truth to this statement ??: "The original “knights” of England were Black! --including the knights of King Arthur’s Round Table! That’s why they were called “knights” after the night or darkness of their skin." , I read it here : http://stewartsynopsis.com/europe_conquered_by_africans.htm

anyway it sounds interesting... but I hope I do not come out too naive for asking this question... anyone able to verify or check the scources and history...21 November 2007 Dinofant (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Amusing, but no. The k is "knight" was originally pronounced, as in German knecht (not that King Arthur's men spoke English, anyway). And Septimius Severus came from Leptis Magna in Libya; and was no more black than the modern Libyans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how somebody can take this article seriosly. Truchses (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The original Knights of England were most definatly NOT black! I do not think this comment even needs investigating because quite simply any blacks in Briton (not England as the country was Britainnia pre Anglo Saxon)at the time would have been slaves or servents of a kind. How many black Romans do we see in any Roman survivning art? Unless pouring wine to a Roman dignitary? I have come across this also on you tube whereby someone of African origin, residing in America, is making claims that the Anglo Saxons themselves were black. Some people will do anything to turn what is known to their own screwed up agenda! English n proud (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be an awful lot of it lately, worth semi-protecting again? -Bbik^★ 16:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose to merge the content of Knight's token into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. Actually it's not quite clear why this little piece of information warrants an own article; but maybe it can be merged here (or maybe someone knowns a better place to merge it to.)

Please add your comments below. Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to add here that I merged it to Hastilude instead, since it seemed more approriate. Gwinva (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those above who have expressed concerns with the reliability and general style of this article, and I also agree with those who say "what a big task"!! I have added a comprehensive and referenced section on the decline of knights, which is a start. I'd be happy to work with anyone else who wants a more wholesale rewrite of the article. Perhaps a removal of the preRaphaelite pictures would help: Victorian assumptions, with little basis in fact. I'll have a think what to do with the article, but I've been putting it off for a while as it takes more time than I've got. perhaps we can start again? Perhaps even separate the Knight (medieval) stuff from the more rank and peerage stuff... any ideas? Gwinva (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't say much about what age someone would usually become a knight at. It mentions that people would go away to be pages at the age of 7 or 8, and that for "at least seven years a page was cared for by the women of the house." It also talks about what pages and squires do, but is completely silent on what age people usually became knights at. Could anyone add this information? Lord Seth (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The german article says the time frame for "Knappe" (german, ~ eng: "squire") is the same as for child and page, about 7 years, thus the rank of 'knight' is achieved with about 21. Truchses (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Section Etymology: "In German, the literal meaning of Ritter is rider;" I'm confused. I understand this sentence this way, that the author would translate ger: "Ritter" with eng: "rider". I always thought in English a 'rider' is somebody who rides on something, normally on a horse. The german equivalent for this should be the word 'Reiter'. I never heard that a 'Ritter' is ever understood in this sense. I always found it in every context in the same sense as the english word 'knight'. Common term: "Ritter Lancelot". Lancelot is always a 'Ritter', even if he is not riding, instead it denotes his social rank and profession. And if the term 'Ritter' should only mean 'Rider', than why is it in the 'knight' article? I believe that my interpretation of this words is correct and all dictionaries I looked up so far support my interpretation. I guess the author missed that there are two words in German, 'Ritter' and 'Reiter' which are obviously very similar and of the same origin. I suggest that a native English speaker checks the words and corrects the part in the article if reasonable. Truchses (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

German isn't the only language to make that connection. The scandinavian words for "knight" are almost identical to their words for "rider". It seems very likely to me that the word "Ritter" was originally simply another spelling of "Reiter", especially considering that the german wiki lists "Reiter" as a high german spelling of "Ritter": http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritter Andrimner (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also similar in Dutch, which actually has 3 similar words: rijder (general 'rider'), ruiter (rider on horseback) and ridder (knight). The words seem specialised variants of the same notion of someone riding something. 212.159.200.167 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Reiter" is Modern German, "riter" is Middle High German. High German around 1500 shifted its vowel system around, and some words that used to be identical got split. "Reiter" vs. "Ritter" is such an example, before 1500, these two words used to be one and the same. --dab (𒁳) 12:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Section Etymology: The meaning to the English version, "Cniht" is totally wrong! The Anglo Saxon chronicle and The Gesta Herewardi in dealing with the English rebellion to Norman rule both state that Hereward (the Wake, this is a later adition to his name so that somebody of Norman origin, who held the lands of Hereward sometime after, could claim to have held them from hereward himself/to claim decent from him) either before or during the siege of Ely, was knighted by the Thurstan the last English abbot of Ely. Its a while since i read the book that pointed me to these two entries (the Gesta is based on an earlier Old English account of the struggles of Hereward, and probably borrowed very heavily from the only written source of the time.The Anglo Saxon chronicle)but the reasons it gives for Herewards Knighthood was to face William the Bastard and his Norman force on equal termsEnglish n proud (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, User:Peterkeyani, for your recent detailed contributions to the history sections. I have restored the original lead paragraphs, since WP:LEAD requests that this section includes an overview of the whole article: we really do need a basic intro to what knighthood is, both in the past and how it is now. These sections cover that, although the prose could be improved. I also restored the lost disambiguation hatnote, and the clean-up tag: it is not best practice to remove these unless the clean-up has occurred. This article is certainly in need of citations. On the subject of which, I would urge you to add in-line citations (see WP:CITE) while the sources are fresh in your mind. When (if) someone eventually attempts to bring this page to order (to bring it to B class or above) they will need to remove everything which is not cited, and it would be a shame for your work to be lost. (For example, see the requirements at Military History WikiProject). See also the "decline of knighthood" section: this is the only one which would pass the citing requirements at this stage. As it stands, this article is only "start" class. Well done for tackling it, though! As you can see above, many people have expressed dissatisfaction, but few are willing to commit. Gwinva (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I realise this is the page for the en.wikipedia rather than simple, but I am not a regular here and I am not so not sure if the simple page can have comments added. My comment is simply that I do not feel it likely that however simple the simple page it should refer to "poopoo heads". Can that be edited?

82.152.176.35 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Order of Knights Templar is still an active order and regularly practiced in most countries where Freemasonry has a strong presence. Similarly, the Knights of the Order of DeMolay, Knights of the Southern Cross and Knights Templar Priests are also active orders with Preceptory locations around the world. Andmark (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Knights Templar (Freemasonry) says: "There is no known historical evidence to link the medieval Knights Templar and Masonic Templarism. Masonic Knights Templar organizations also claim no direct link to the original medieval organization." -- Jao (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That is actually incorrect. There is a definitive link between them that is documented in masonic texts and available at most regional central masonic libraries. There is no basis for the statement "Masonic Knights Templar organizations also claim no direct link to the original medieval organization." I cannot find a source or a citation for this statement. The discontinuous nature of many organisations does not call into question the authenticity of the cause or their ability to evolve and participate in different activities in the modern age. All of the 'friendly societies' and provident organisations have similar evolutionary paths. Independent Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF), Manchester Unity and many other health and investment funds all have their historical origins in these ancient orders. The fact that they are operating in a different format with different corporate governance does not mean that they are not historically linked. Andmark (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, why is there a passage on Samarians and King Arthur? How is a discussion of a fictional character relevant to a historical encyclopedia peice? If you don't remember Wikipedia is a forum for FACTS and not crackpot theroies on the names of pseudo-historical figures. May I suggest you move this disscusion and put it in the King Arthur (movie) section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.64.80 (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For anyone's information, the passage was added in a series of edits by User:Peterkeyani on March 11, 2008 (as you can see in the intro, the worst stuff has been reverted). As for the Sarmatian stuff, I actually think much of this may well be relevant to the development of knighthood, although it could probably be shortened, and certainly cleaned up (what's with the wikilinking of every mention of the Sarmatians?). Another idea might be to fork out this information to another article, linked to from this one, and have this article strictly about the European concept. As for the paragraph linking the Sarmatians with the Arthur legends, it reeks of original research and should probably just be deleted. Don't see what any of this has to do with any King Arthur movie though. -- Jao (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on specific info in the article I will note that the legends/romances/chansons of King Arthur were well developed during the High Medieval period and no doubt played a role in the contemporary view of knighthood, its ideals etc. Such info is not irrelevant and does not deal only with movies. Please login and sign your comments. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I came across the following during some research:

Robson died of cancer on 5 December 1964 in Canberra Community Hospital and was cremated; his wife and their son survived him. Although he had not formally accepted a knighthood, special arrangements allowed his wife to be known as Lady Robson.

I know of cases where a man had accepted a knighthood but died before it was publicly announced (e.g. Henry Cotton). Because the knighthood had been approved, he was considered to have been knighted prior to his death, he can now legitimately be referred to as Sir Henry Cotton, and his widow (assuming he was married) can call herself Lady Cotton.

I also know of one case where a widow of a non-knight was accorded the rank, but not the style, of widow of a knight (Kathleen Scott).

The Robson case is different again. If it's true, are there any other examples of such an honour? What was so special about Robson and/or his wife that made this appropriate? (No article at the moment.) I'm musing that perhaps a knighthood was in the offing but the process hadn't got to the stage where he'd been formally approached by the time he died; but the expectation was there and so his widow was indulged for whatever reason. Any clues, anyone? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The article definitely needs a "Romanticism" section. The Delacroix painting would belong in that section, not in the lead. --dab (𒁳) 20:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there's been additional vandalism: Under the Etymology heading, sentence one of paragraph 2 begins, "In this respect English differs from most other penis languages...." I'm not sure what this is supposed to be: Romance languages? But I'm pretty sure that this is incorrect. BoricGlanduum (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if we should ask for (hopefully permanent) semi-protection again. Looking at this article's recent history, nearly everything there is a series of IP vandalism and users reverting to the last reverted version. I'd like to do some more serious work on this article, but it's just so unstable. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I requested last week two times for indef semi-protection, but without success.--Yopie 10:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I try it again here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Yopie 17:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Now we can start sifting through this mess and make an article out of it. Well done Yopie! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Right in the first section: "[...]Polish kawaler for modern knights and rycerz for medieval knights,[...]". What is a modern knight? I don't get it. Besides this, I think the whole stuff explaining the word "knight" in other languages should be in the "Etymology"-section and not in the introduction. If I want to learn about knights, the first thing I wanna read is definitely not the word for knight in 20 other languages. --DavidDCM (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a valid point about this information being misplaced in the lead paragraph. I cut it down to only the French and the German, to give just one example of each. I hope that improves the readability. This information is further explained in the Etymology section anyway. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

hey, I just saw a photo of 2 Knights with Lightsabers? who put that picture here? i don't recall midievil knights using Sci-fi weaponry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterian (talk • contribs) 19:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well just what do they teach you in history class these days?

I think we should add the Royal Order of the Dannebrog just after the Royal Norwegian Order of St Olav.

(Ice Explorer (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

I deleted hoax about the O'Shaughnessys and hereditary knighthood, because in provided source (The story of an Irish property) is nothing about "hereditary knighthood". On page 54 is only patent by Henry VIII. about grant of land for Knight's fee, but this Knight's fee is only "the amount of money and/or military service a fief was required to pay to support one knight". --Yopie (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reason for declaring this a hoax is plainly something else. I have just reported you to Wikipedia administration, also for removing appropriate tags. DinDraithou (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your report was concluded "This is not vandalism, this is a content dispute." Thus, say number of page in The story of an Irish property, where is "hereditary knighthood" for O'Shaughnessy. --Yopie (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is far from concluded. That admin may have looked into it for all of 20 seconds. OK so maybe you just don't know what you're talking about and aren't familiar with Surrender and regrant, but I note that you claim to be a monarchist and this just happens to be Gaelic-Irish related. In that case you may lack the capacity to develop a background even when provided links and sources. Possibly you've formed interesting ideas on who and what are rabble and think you are defending against something. DinDraithou (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor has challenged a specific source you've cited - please assume good faith and discuss the disputed source, rather than making presumptuous statements about the motives of other editors. --McGeddon (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Usually I'm willing to. But he hasn't actually challenged the source. It may look like he's made a point but it's patently vacuous. DinDraithou (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way I don't care to be selectively lectured, McGeddon. Material I added and sourced, and which he has chosen not to make an effort to understand, he has called a "hoax", acting as if he has the right to dismiss a well documented action of Henry VIII of England. DinDraithou (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Again, DinDraithou, say page in The story of an Irish property (or other source), where is explicitly "hereditary knighthood" for O'Shaughnessy. I´m not against you, Ireland, Gaels etc., but discuss the disputed source.--Yopie (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be. The title of the article is Knight and the section is Great Britain and Ireland. O'Shaughnessy was knighted by Henry, created Sir, and his family legally inherited the title for several generations. Lacking a source giving any reason for exclusion of this sort of title from the article, you are being subjective with the term "hereditary knighthood". As I said, this is patently vacuous. DinDraithou (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you cannot inherit British title "knight" (with 3 exceptions).--Yopie (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You are just incorrect. And here's an explicit source, finally: . It's about three quarters down the page. They not only "continued to be recognised as knights until their tenure per servitium militare came to an end, in the time of Cromwell", but restitution was "made to them after the Restoration of Charles II., in Common Soccage." DinDraithou (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, you are right, this is correct source.--Yopie (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ok just to kinda say i love to use this website because it gives me alot of information when im writing papers for my school!!!!

Like the Agincourt article (thankfully recently updated with the actual facts) it seems that even King Arthur isn't safe from French vandalism. 'Franco-British legend', I think not,it was of course purely British with some cultural contamination feeding across the channel. however like so many British cultural icons recently have been either classed as propoganda,stolen or denounced. Isn't it about time a regular editor updates this bias with the actual facts rather than some French make believe? I've heard of sour grapes but please!Twobells (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

How is this a "British wiki article"? Also, I must say that the Bayeux tapestry isn't the best example of a "British national treasure", seeing as it was commissioned by the French (Normans) to immortalize the successful invasion and conquest of England. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

French (Normans)??? Two very different peoples! — Preceding unsigned comment added by English n proud (talk • contribs) 19:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I can think of half a dozen plays, tv shows and films off hand that might suffice and be amalgamated within 'Knights in literature' but I will defer to a regular editor for the final okay.Twobells (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

perhaps consider Depiction of the Middle Ages in popular culture, Middle Ages in film or Medievalism#Twentieth_century. --dab (𒁳) 12:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys how create a page in this wiki ? please say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.195.194 (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"let them earn their spurs" did not mean for the knights in battle to distinguish themselves, winning spurs meant winning a knight status.

"let them earn their spurs" did not mean for the knights in battle to distinguish themselves, winning spurs meant winning a knight status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.205.99.3 (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is very prone to rambling about "mounted warriors" of the "Middle Ages". But being an encyclopedia, we will need to keep this in perspective. To be distinguished are:

• the early medieval period, including the 10th and 11th centuries (i.e. down to the first Crusade): before "knighthood" or "chivalry", knight meaning "servant", and cavalry being cavalry, without any special status of "knights".
• the 12th and 13th centuries: "knights" as a rank of lower nobility, who happened to be charged with serving as heavy cavalry. In the context of the crusades, also the militant orders. At the same time, the fictional stories of knighthood in courtly literature develop the idea of "chivalry".
• the Late Middle Ages: the "knight" as a rank of lower nobility still exists, but not any longer as serving in heavy cavalry. At the same time, the higher nobility becomes infatuated with the ideals of chivalry, and they "play knight", but off the battlefield, where the Swiss pike squares now dominate, in the jousting grounds.
• the Renaissance (16th century) and onward: the "knight" as "mounted Christian warrior" of bygone days.

From this, it becomes clear that "knights were mounted warriors of the Middle Ages" applies to the 12th to 14th centuries at best. Not before (there were mounted warriors, but they were not "knights" as such) and not after (there were "knights", but they were not "mounted warriors" as such). --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Completely agreed with the above, the article needs perspective to not insinuate fantastic ideas to people with little knowledge on the subject. The worst example is currently the section on Chivalry which fails to strongly point out that it had more to do with fantasy and myth (especially in playful retrospective in the late middle ages and renaissance, as the above mentions). The source used for justifying this? Catholic Encyclopedia... www.newadvent.org/cathen/03691a.htm. Maybe we should have a romanticism section as was suggested previously... http://engling.truman.edu/SeniorSem/PDFpapers/Thompson%20paper%20PDF.pdf

RhoDaZZ (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is pointed to on the article page but doesn't seem to exist. If it is elsewhere on the page, please feel free to cut & paste these comments there. It is probably a good idea to split the discussion of the modern social and honorific structures from their military antecedents, if only because to cover them both fully in one place would create an article larger than that recommended for wikipedia. Obviously, links would be required from summary sections to main articles in both directions but that is both easier and routine. Both should also summarise and link to Military Orders in a similar way. The fly in the ointment seems to be Chivalric orders, which seems to cover a lot of the same territory. A merge would not be out of the question but I think a discussion between this article and that about splitting and merging as an operation is probably required.Monstrelet (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Are you going to do it? 15:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I was assuming the person who made the original suggestion would take the lead on that Monstrelet (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was assuming that you had asked for the split. Op47 (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Understandable. It was actually Dbachmann on 8th April.

--Monstrelet (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there were many ways the knight careers were available in the home front, other than becoming a special forces/mercenary unit and a commissioned officer of a division. Good examples would be landlords and the high sheriff of a town or city.--GoShow (.....) 18:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)