Forgive me if this has been asked...

When a knight's squire goes off and becomes a knight himself, the knight is expected to take another squire. What happens if there isn't a young man of appropriate age and station at the court of the knight's liege? Is the knight expected to look farther afield, perhaps to higher courts or the halls of neighboring lords? Would a knight acquire a common servant (perhaps a groom or valet) to handle the fetching and carrying while he searches for another squire, or would he find/be assigned a new squire quickly enough that this wouldn't matter? Might there be knights, particular household knights, who might not have squires simply because the pool of qualified young noblemen might be too small?

Thanks for the insight.

Forgive me if this has been asked...

When a knight's squire goes off and becomes a knight himself, the knight is expected to take another squire. What happens if there isn't a young man of appropriate age and station at the court of the knight's liege? Is the knight expected to look farther afield, perhaps to higher courts or the halls of neighboring lords? Would a knight acquire a common servant (perhaps a groom or valet) to handle the fetching and carrying while he searches for another squire, or would he find/be assigned a new squire quickly enough that this wouldn't matter? Might there be knights, particular household knights, who might not have squires simply because the pool of qualified young noblemen might be too small?

Thanks for the insight.

I would think that a lord, if ungoing such a shortage, would seriously consider appointing young commoners as squires - possibly sons from the wealthier or more influential families of the area*. After all, squires are essentially his knights-in-training, and not having any replacements "in the pipeline" so to speak is taking a serious risk of being caught short when something happens, such as a Saxon invasion.

This might also vary by period. In later periods the nobility requirement might be more stringently enforced. In early periods the difference between a knight and a mounted sergent appears to be a bit more blurred.

* - Of course, accepting a commoner's son as a squire might also require a favor, payment, or perhaps forgiveness of an outstanding debt.

Forgive me if this has been asked...

When a knight's squire goes off and becomes a knight himself, the knight is expected to take another squire. What happens if there isn't a young man of appropriate age and station at the court of the knight's liege? Is the knight expected to look farther afield, perhaps to higher courts or the halls of neighboring lords?

First, his lord would probably choose a squire for him. Yes, of course the knight will be asked to contribute to the choosing
Everyone's court has a batch of squires working there, so there is perhaps one who qualifies. If not, then there certainly would be a bunch of esquires who would toss their daily job aside to ride with a knight.


Would a knight acquire a common servant (perhaps a groom or valet) to handle the fetching and carrying while he searches for another squire, or would he find/be assigned a new squire quickly enough that this wouldn't matter?

In general, a qualified groom wouldn't know how to do the rest of a squire's duties, so he would have to hire two people to replace his squire. Neither of them would qualify to help a knight on the battlefiled, leaving that knight at qute a disadvantage.


Might there be knights, particular household knights, who might not have squires simply because the pool of qualified young noblemen might be too small?

Yes, certainly there might. But unlikely.

Oaktree (above) also has some god insights

First, his lord would probably choose a squire for him. Yes, of course the knight will be asked to contribute to the choosing
Everyone's court has a batch of squires working there, so there is perhaps one who qualifies. If not, then there certainly would be a bunch of esquires who would toss their daily job aside to ride with a knight.

I think I must be drastically underestimating the available squires and esquires at my court. I simply don't have that many first and second sons of officers and vassal knights.

I think I must be drastically underestimating the available squires and esquires at my court. I simply don't have that many first and second sons of officers and vassal knights.

Change the child & childbirth mortality rules to something more realistic (see Book of the Estate, for example, or the threads on this Forum) and you should see a marked increase in family sizes. Knights having 3-4 boys surviving to adulthood isn't a near impossibility anymore, but quite common.

The other thing is to keep in mind that the esquires often marry, too, and have children of their own, even if the household knights wouldn't. Mercenary knights often have wives or at least bastards. Household knights might have 'liaisons' with low-born women, but might acknowledge their bastards rather than die heirless.

Remember, you can have a squire without that squire ever 'graduating' to a knight. Indeed, given that the squire training lasts only 7 years and that the number of knights stays more or less level, it means that for every squire who does become a knight, you are likely to have two more who become mere esquires. These would be the Nth sons of a knight, or the sons of the esquires. There is no need to limit yourself to merely 1st and 2nd sons of vassal knights and officers.

The other thing is to keep in mind that the esquires often marry, too, and have children of their own, even if the household knights wouldn't. Mercenary knights often have wives or at least bastards. Household knights might have 'liaisons' with low-born women, but might acknowledge their bastards rather than die heirless.

Ok... because my players will ask... how is it that an esquire, who can't afford to be knighted, can afford a wife when a household knight can't?

Ok... because my players will ask... how is it that an esquire, who can't afford to be knighted, can afford a wife when a household knight can't?

Because:
1) An esquire and hence also his wife and children live at a lower level of upkeep than a knight & his family; they are socially inferior and live more humbly than the landed knight, which stands to reason.
2) An esquire doesn't need to feed the godawful expensive warhorse & a small stable of other horses. Nor does he need to pay for the squire.
3) The household knight's upkeep has been calculated to cover himself, his squire, his horses and NOTHING else. Also, it is not as if the household knight gets to allocate his own upkeep, but he is given his clothing and a place at the table by his liege lord. He is not getting a salary, but upkeep.

If we look at the esquires, they can easily enough to get into a position (skill 16+) where they are making £2 per year (assuming such places are available to them, of course). From squire's upkeep, we get that the esquire needs about £0.75 for his own upkeep, leaving £1.25 for the rest of the family, which is enough. Sure, it is not a luxurious living, unless the wife is doubling as one of the lady's professionals or a lady-in-waiting, which would bring in extra income, too. In the latter case, a couple making £1 each could in principle form a family unit. I do see £2 per family pretty much the minimum for an esquire-level family, though.

Finally, knighting is insanely expensive. In early phase, if you want to have a charger, that is £20 right there, and even smaller warhorses cost a lot. Knighting feast in BotM costs £5 if I recall correctly. Adding all the other stuff, you are well above £30 for a fully equipped new knight & feast. So, about 15 times the total annual income of the esquire of additional funds. This is a whole lot different than being able to support a family year to year.

Of course, all the above applies to commoners (especially peasants) as well: they are able to support families since they live more humbly still, and do not have all those extra expenses.

As far as I know (and always use) is £1 the amount of income of a peasant and his family. an Income of £2 is twice that much.
As Morien says an esquire does not need to live at the same high standard as a household knight and thus he can use his income for his family.
When his expenses are almost the same as a normal peasant family he could live twice as good as a normal peasant family.

Another note: esquires can do the same work as a normal peasant. So they can be tenants like a peasant. So they will probably have some stretch of land around their house that will provide some income as well or at least some food. Knight on the other hand do nothing in the fields so will not acquire any income.

Another note: esquires can do the same work as a normal peasant. So they can be tenants like a peasant. So they will probably have some stretch of land around their house that will provide some income as well or at least some food. Knight on the other hand do nothing in the fields so will not acquire any income.

I would think that, like a knight, an esquire who lived as a peasant would be considered a peasant, having given up his noble status.

I would think that, like a knight, an esquire who lived as a peasant would be considered a peasant, having given up his noble status.

That's how I'd GM it too. Now, an esquire could be a 'gentleman farmer', having bunches of peasants who actually do the work, while he is 'overseeing' the work but not actually touching a shovel himself.

That's how I'd GM it too.

I'd say so too


Now, an esquire could be a 'gentleman farmer', having bunches of peasants who actually do the work, while he is 'overseeing' the work but not actually touching a shovel himself.
which is basically what a knight does with a manor