There's not much in KAP 5.1 about mercenary knights, and I'd like to no more about how they "work." Some questions:

1.) I understand that they are poor knights, but I have to wonder how do they get in the knighthood game in the first place. It takes money to buy one's initial armor, sword, and steed, etc. So does a patron pay for their initial gear, or do they inherit it from a dead uncle or someone?

2.) KAP 5.1 says the main thing that distinguishes a knight merc from a sergeant is the former swears an oath of fealty to a lord. Why is this important, and is this bond considered more "binding" than gold (I imagine this is the case, but I'm trying to work it all out). How does the oath differ from the traditional knightly oath?

3.) What happens to a knight merc's family if he's killed? Are they dependent upon charity to survive? Or maybe the knight's family takes them in, or the widow's family? I guess any of these are possible. What I'm interested in it what's more likely, or expected? Any ideas?

Are there any good articles or books anyone can recommend. I saw Terry Jones "Chaucer's Knight: The Portrait of a Medieval Mercenary," but one review I said thought it was of questionable scholarly quality, which aligns with my opinions of most of Jones' work. He likes being an iconoclast and more intent on blowing up modern perceptions using modern sensibilities than looking at things through the prism of the people of the age.

Thanks in advance.


T.

Just

this is as I understand it:
1) The lord who knights him grants him the equipment. Knighthood is a great gift so it is only granted rarely in this case. Others may be paid by their family. For instance a younger brother to a vassal is also knighted, but since the lord cannot support him the young man becomes a mercenary. Another possibility is a houshold knight who loses his job, because his employer dies and the new lord is not able or willing to support him.
mercenary knights do not have to be poor knights. I guess it depends on the wealth they accrue during their exploits. they can keep up their lifestyle if they manage to get a lot of plunder. But yes Mercenary knights are usually poor knights.

2) the oath of knighthood is a big thing. I guess it is more binding than gold. you do swear fealty to a lord and can be called upon to assist him. so you could end up working for free, thus not getting any income you so sorely need. You swear the oath to become a knight. there is so far I know no difference between becoming a household knight and mercenary knight

3) His family is at the mercy of charity. This can be the lord he worked for or maybe even the lord who knighted him. But as far as I see it, there are no obligations. As a matter of fact it could be that the mercenary knight cannot marry at all, at least not with other nobility. Would you as a father send your daughter off with such a man?

Thanks, Cornelius! I've got a weird dynamic that is a result of the standard chargen process in KAP 5.1. Basically, the one PK in my solo campaign opted to not be knighted until he was 25 yrs old. But, when rolling for his family background he rolled THREE younger brother knights. This has been, and continues to be, a challenge to explain.

So I decided that one brother would be a household knight in the service of the Duke of Cornwall, while two of the other brothers (twins) had also found their way to the Duke's service as mercenary knights (the Duke needs all the help he can get against those pesky Irish don'tcha know). Still another brother was until last year a squire. He was knighted before the Battle of Lincoln and is either a merc knight or a household knight in the service of someone (I haven't decided yet—but I need to).

Anyhoo, that's a boatload of knights for one family. So I'm trying to figure out: why did they become knights instead esquires or sergeants, who paid for their arms, how strong their allegiances are, and what happens to their families if they're killed, etc. After the events in 491, I need to figure out how his brothers' sudden unemployment impacts his family, if at all.

Thanks again for replying!


T.

Maybe the family has an older relative (uncle, etc.) without children who is willing to help out in keeping the family in the nobility. Or at least armed/armored to be capable mercenary fighters.

And arguably family background is the major difference between a mercenary knight and a mounted sergeant. The latter did not come from a noble family.

And depending on cases I'm sure there are lots of examples of families knighting heavily down the family tree for different reasons. In a current campaign a knight (with ten surviving children) has gotten the 4th son knighted. A major reason is that this is the eldest son of his current wife, so domestic tranquility is definitely playing a role. That the knight is a banneret and has been able to afford it is a big issue as well. I do not see a vassal knight being able to raise the funds to completely equip many beyond the eldest without luck in adventures and campaigns.

Knight: A person who has been knighted. Generally assumed to be able (as in skills and equipment) to fight as a heavy cavalryman as well.

Mercenary Knight: A knight fighting for pay rather than as part of his feudal duty. He is a man who has no lord of his own, only an employer. But he is still a knight, so he is 'one of us'. The whole 'fighting for money' -bit does sound... commercial activity, though. And without the security of having a lord, the mercenary knight might not have enough money for his own Upkeep at Normal level.

Household Knight: A knight who is part of the household of a lord. He has sworn allegiance to the lord, and the lord in return provides for him. He is NOT a mercenary knight by the previous definition: he is fighting as part of his feudal duty. He is at his lord's beck and call 24/7. In return, the lord provides for him at Normal level. And long, noteworthy service makes him a trusted companion of the lord, and hence when there are heiresses to be married off, the household knight might be rewarded with one.

Equipment: This is provided by the family of the knight. Almost never by the lord, unless he really, really needs an armed knight, or he wishes to reward the father, or if he is very, very generous (and even then, it should be noteworthy, not routine). Arthur does it occasionally during Pentecost. The knight who trained the squire might chip in as well (like an old chain mail looted from a defeated enemy). Esquires are squires who have completed their training for a knight, but are unable to afford the horse and armor, and hence do not become full knights. Instead, they might continue as squires, or to take service as a steward or a herald, or some such.

In the case of having many younger brothers as knights, it would be very rare. Here's how it might go:
1) The eldest son is knighted with the Aid from the manor.
2) The 2nd son is knighted with the equipment bought by their generous father with the money he has managed to put aside for just this eventuality.
3) The 3rd son is knighted with the father's old equipment.
4) The 4th son is knighted with the equipment of a childless uncle, who left it as a legacy.
5) The 5th son is knighted with the equipment donated by the knight who trained the squire (+ likely equipment donated by the other brothers, as well).

In our campaign, it has become a bit customary for the knights to show off their Generosity by gifting their squires with some horses / armor by the time the squires leave their service. And one PK made a point of ensuring that his younger brother would be equipped as a knight as well.

Thanks again, Morien, for joining this.



Mercenary Knight: A knight fighting for pay rather than as part of his feudal duty. He is a man who has no lord of his own, only an employer.

But KAP 5.1 says the mercenary knight does take the oath of knighthood "before" a lord. Hence my questions, in part. Indeed this oath, the book says, is what makes him a knight. So if the money dries up, does the lord release him from his oath? What does the oath mean in this context? Surely this oath is somewhat different from the standard oath. Maybe the other contributing thing that distinguishes a merc knight from a sergeant is that the former is from a noble family and could even inherit the title someday?

T.

Oath of knighthood is different from an oath of fealty (and/or homage), as far as I know.

So yes, when a squire is knighted by a lord, the oath of knighthood is sworn before the lord. However, that is IT. If the lord does not offer a spot in his household or land (a manor), then the new knight takes no oath of fealty/homage to the lord. The knight is free to seek employment elsewhere.

Naturally, it would be best to be knighted by a lord who is willing to take you on. However, at least in our campaign, this is rarely the case, unless you are the heir of a manor. Lords are a bit hesitant to take on a new, inexperienced knight, unless the knight has already shown himself to be especially noteworthy in some manner, or has good family connections that the lord wishes to cultivate.

Thus, many new knights become knight errants, to wander around, seeking fame and fortune. Riding in tournaments and adventures to make a name for themselves, and yes, taking coin to fight in battles as well. It is that latter that would classify them as a mercenary knight. After all, how else would they be able to afford 4L per year as their upkeep? (Except perhaps in a tournament, by defeating other young knights for their armor and horse...)

Oath of knighthood is different from an oath of fealty (and/or homage), as far as I know.

Yes, I may well be conflating the two. See my recent post on the Oath of Knighthood. My studies continue...


So yes, when a squire is knighted by a lord, the oath of knighthood is sworn before the lord. However, that is IT. If the lord does not offer a spot in his household or land (a manor), then the new knight takes no oath of fealty/homage to the lord. The knight is free to seek employment elsewhere.

So this just means the knight swears to uphold the general tenants of chivalry (again, see my recent post) but without warrant to particular fidelity to the lord...


Naturally, it would be best to be knighted by a lord who is willing to take you on. However, at least in our campaign, this is rarely the case, unless you are the heir of a manor. Lords are a bit hesitant to take on a new, inexperienced knight, unless the knight has already shown himself to be especially noteworthy in some manner, or has good family connections that the lord wishes to cultivate.

Thus, many new knights become knight errants, to wander around, seeking fame and fortune. Riding in tournaments and adventures to make a name for themselves, and yes, taking coin to fight in battles as well. It is that latter that would classify them as a mercenary knight. After all, how else would they be able to afford 4L per year as their upkeep? (Except perhaps in a tournament, by defeating other young knights for their armor and horse...)


Okay, thanks again. I've found some related posts over the years on these forums and are going to try and piece them together for additional understanding.

Best,


T.

Think of the scene after a grand battle where several young men have proved themselves in battle.
They should be rewarded and grandly so, however the marshall knows little or anything about them except for their bravery.

Why not knight them - grant them horse and armor from the spoils of war that is rightly the marshalls - they will be in your debt for that surely.
But can you trust them so much that you'd grant them fielty? Not really, they have only proved themselves in battle so it would be reckless to promise them a place in your household or domains.

Thus, knight them and invite them as guests over winter. Take their measure and see if they are of the right breeding.
Then IF you ask them for fielty as well - they will owe you double.

[hr]

Then look at the lord who loses land or life. A baron without an heir for instance, all those knights in his household - will the new liege really want to keep all of them? Some too old or injured to be of really good use. The one who brags too much or who always charges recklessly into battle without warning? Why not instead bring in some young blood from your own lineage?
Of course the new lord will be able to refit his domain as he wants. So what then with those knights who no longer have a lord?
Well its off to the road for them, isn't it? To see if they can find someone in need of arms for hire.

[hr]

Then the sad tale of the knight who in a fit of passion drove himself from his lord? He had asked for permission to marry but the lord had refused since the knight had not earned that honor yet. So the knight, against the will of his lord, eloped and married without permission.
Of course the lord must punish him, but not overly much to show both justice but also forgiveness.
So banishment it was. Revoke the oath of fielty since the knight did not obey his master and be sent off to wander the cold roads with his now pregnant wife, soon to be sick cold and dead at the roadside because the knight stubbornly refused alms at the last castle.
I hear that he wanders the roads still, seeking refuge and humility.

[hr]

Then when it comes to random tables and younger knights - if the oldest son isn't knighted yet I always interpret that as a sergeant.

Thanks, Spoonist—those are all very good examples. I appreciate you taking the time to craft such a thoughtful response. You're earned some Glory!


T.