Difference between Man-At-Arms and Sergeants?

[Basileus of Byzantium]

What's the historical difference between these two? Usually it seems to me that Man-At-Arms are a 14th to 16th century soldier while the sergeant is a 12th to early 14th century soldier. The Man-At-Arms is seen higher than the Sergeant and the MAA is a professional soldier compared to the Sergeant who is semi-professional. I've sometimes heard these two soldiers are actually the same, a Sergeant Man-At-Arms. I'm trying to revamp the European rosters for my own pleasures but it's confusing me as whether or not I should fuse both Sergeant and Man At Arms units together or keep them separate.

[Andytheplatypus]

They probably have different stats.

[Eat]

I don't know the historical difference, and now I'm kind of curious.
With absolutely no knowledge or authority...
...I say use spear/polearm/mounted sergeants, equipped with padded, mail, etc, till around 1300/1350. (not sure about any specific date)

Then replace them with sword/halberd/mounted men-at-arms, equipped with newer heavy armor.
At the same time replacing the crossbow with arbalest. (I think?)
Just make sure they cant exist concurrently.

[Basileus of Byzantium]

They probably have different stats.

I mean historical difference, the line between Sergeant and Man At Arms tends to be blurred and it's not explained well.

[Andytheplatypus]

I think it was defined more as a rank difference. I would assume so anyway

[ToxicKilla]

Sergeants (sergeants-at-arms) were professional drawn from the lower classes, but not peasants, and existed throughout the medieval period and they were usually cavalrymen or, more commonly, well trained and reasonably equipped infantrymen such as spearmen (like armoured sergeants in the game) or crossbowmen. Men-at-arms however appeared in later parts of the medieval period and basically were heavy cavalrymen or some times heavy infantrymen that were drawn from what we'd call the middle class and minor-nobility and were also professional soldiers. I imagine they'd be better trained than Knights too seeing as they don't have that many other duties to tend to.

[Basileus of Byzantium]

Sergeants (sergeants-at-arms) were professional drawn from the lower classes, but not peasants, and existed throughout the medieval period and they were usually cavalrymen or, more commonly, well trained and reasonably equipped infantrymen such as spearmen (like armoured sergeants in the game) or crossbowmen. Men-at-arms however appeared in later parts of the medieval period and basically were heavy cavalrymen or some times heavy infantrymen that were drawn from what we'd call the middle class and minor-nobility and were also professional soldiers. I imagine they'd be better trained than Knights too seeing as they don't have that many other duties to tend to.

So by lower class you mean minor nobility or upper middle class like merchants were recruited for sergeantry? When it comes to the training of the MAA compared to Knights I'm not entirely sure, the lifestyle of a European knight is not known to me though I assume that they may be on equal standing as the knight may be required by the monarchy to train themselves on a regular basis for whenever they are called to war.

[Alfonzo over Innsmouths]

I imagine the difference is simply a rise in professionalism - as the role on the knight was deminished courtesy of superior infantry tactics (albeit veeeeery slowly, thinking from 1200's through to 1350's), newer, better soldiers were required. Sergents (or 'servents') would have been the early medieval version of professional infantry - not exactly professional, just maybe troops that have a bit better training than peasentry to put them on even ground with mercenaries. As time continued, the forces became more professional with the decline in the importance of fuedal cavalry. Hence, Men at Arms appeared. They can be considered to be replacements for knights, albeit not as good, and less costly to implement and replenish. Kinda like when Prussia underwent of 'lightening of the horse' or Japan had an increase in the importance of Ashigaru armies or pike tactics became widespread over professional knights - it became simply better to use a force that was cheaper to use and maintain than knights. So Men at Arms should be cheaper than knights, and more available than knights, however have slightly less stats, while Serjants should be less numerous than Levy, and be slightly better.

Think of it like evolution from peasentry, to serjant, to men-at-arms, to knight

[Strategos Autokrator]

This is from wiki and I can confirm its validity.

- Under the feudal system in late and high medieval England, tenure by serjeanty was a form of land-holding in return for some specified service, ranking between tenure by knight-service (enfeoffment) and tenure in socage. It is also used of similar forms in Continental Europe.

Socage:
- In this respect it contrasted with other forms of tenure including serjeanty (the farmer paid no rent but had to perform some personal/official service on behalf of his lord, including in times of war) and frankalmoin (some form of religious service). For those higher up the feudal pyramid, there was also knight-service (military service) as a condition of land tenure.

- Serjeanty originated in the assignation of an estate in land on condition of the performance of a certain duty other than knight-service, usually the discharge of duties in the household of king or noble. It ranged from service in the king's host, distinguished only by equipment from that of the knight, to petty renders scarcely distinguishable from those of the rent-paying tenant or socager.

- By the reign of King Edward I (r. 1272–1307), tenure by serjeanty was well on the retreat, as Kimball observes in her study of the English serjeanties published in 1936:
"Once it began to give way, serjeanty disintegrated more quickly and easily than the other tenures as the feudal conception of society lost its hold. [...] Its miscellaneous services had [..] many fates. A large number soon became obsolete; others were commuted to money payments or changed to knight's service; a few that were honourable or ornamental were retained in their original form as part of the coronation ceremony. Some being still useful were performed by deputy, or absorbed into the regular administrative system."

The reason for the decline of serjeanty (in England) was the growing Yeoman class of free land owners, a direct result of Magna Carta. In other words, the number of archers increased and the number of serjeants declined. Serjeanty is a feudal unit much like the knight. They usually fought on foot with spear, sword/axe, shield and a haubergeon. The number of men at arms (at first mercenaries) increased due to the increased practice of paying scutage. Only the motivated chose to fight.

Men at arms are men payed to fight, serjeants are not. They fought either on foot or on horseback. With all type of weapons like knights, and also with crossbows. As the serjeanty declined, and the nobles started to pay scutage, the number of men at arms increased. That is not to say that they didn't exist in the Early Middle Ages, although the trend was that they served as long term loyal mercenaries. If a lord recruited and trained them him self, they were considered professional soldiers on pair with knights on foot, or at least close to, and better than serjeants. However, they didn't have armor of the quality the knights had, but the serjeanty were on pair with them. In the High and Late Middle Ages all knights were men at arms, but not all men at arms were knights. If you knew how to fight and could afford the equipment, you could serve as a men at arms alongside knights on the battlefield, either in a retinue or as mercenaries. Some men at arms were recruited, equipped and trained by the nobles as a cheap substitute for a knight they had to pay a lot more and/or give land. Men at arms of this type usually got outdated armor when full plate armor started to replace mail armor with partially plates added to the mail. In other words, handed down equipment. In the Late Middle Ages they were also issued the handed-down equipment regular knights replaced with plate armor of better quality. By better quality I mean a Diamond Pyramid Hardness of 300-500. Early plate armor could only reach 250 DPH or there about because of impurities in the steel. In the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages, men at arms also served as foot-soldiers when they were ordered to fight on foot, or couldn't afford a warhorse and the extra armor they required.

So basically you have Serjeanty supported by land. The Yeoman class phased them out over time. Men at arms serving in a retinue or as mercenaries replaced them on the battlefield along with a growing merchant class and regular billmen from the peasant class.
Early men at arms were swordsmen, spearmen, crossbowmen and medium cavalry, usually riding s rouncey.
They served as mercenaries, in a retinue or as professional soldiers sworn to a lord.
When plate armor started to become popular, they served as heavy cavalry and heavy infantry wielding a bec de corbin or pollaxe. When equipped with a shield they wielded a mace, war-hammer or sword.

[ToxicKilla]

So by lower class you mean minor nobility or upper middle class like merchants were recruited for sergeantry? When it comes to the training of the MAA compared to Knights I'm not entirely sure, the lifestyle of a European knight is not known to me though I assume that they may be on equal standing as the knight may be required by the monarchy to train themselves on a regular basis for whenever they are called to war.

Yeah basically sergeants came from towns-folk, whereas the non-professional levies were villagers. Also by knights being less trained I mean less trained in the ways of teamwork, seeing as Knights, when not at war, would go back to whatever place they govern until they're needed to fight again whereas sergeants and men at arms may spend time in barracks, training together etc.

[Kataphractos]

Eh, I've always been under the impression that man-at-arms was a catchall term for non-ranged fighting men before the Renaissance. Knights were technically men-at-arms, but this did not make all men-at-arms knights, even if they were similarly armed and/or fought on horseback.

[Maltacus]

Yes, man-at-arms can and is used as a very general term sometimes. For the purpose of this discussion I suppose it is best to define men-at-arms as only the late medieval professionals that are represented by the men-at-arms units in SS.

It's hard, if even possible, to draw a clear line between sergeants and men-at-arms. The non-noble (mostly) class of professionals changed throughout the middle ages just as the nobles and levies did. Coin started to matter more and land became less important than before. Training and organisation of armies improved and quality equipment became more widely available, leading to a rise of professional troops rather than feudal warrior class cores with their attached retainers and levies. The difference between sergeants and men-at-arms is pretty much the difference between the characteristic early and late professional medieval soldier.

[Criomorph]

Everything here is generally good with one small exception - neither sergeants nor men-at-arms would've, at any point, been better trained than knights. While sergeants and men-at-arms might've focused more on teamwork and formation fighting, the fact of the matter is even during the twilight days of the knights, they could barely compare in terms of skill at arms. A knight trained from childhood all the way to adulthood. Between tournaments, jousts, mock-battles etc. knights regularly busied themselves with combat and warfare even when they weren't at war.

It always annoyed me how knights in Medieval 2 are sort of okay heavy cavalry and infantry. There wasn't a force on God's green earth that could stand up to a knight in single combat, nor a unit that could withstand a charge from knightly cavalry(being the heaviest in recorded history). By right, a unit of knights should be able to massacre it's way through anything but high/late medieval men-at-arms type units armed with arbalests, extremely powerful longbows or guns, or very late medieval/early Renaissance men-at-arms.

As a final note, Knights should be damn-near impervious to, pretty much, everything save for other knights and artillery until the high/late, late and Renaissance periods. And that's a matter of historical fact. Even early-medieval knights(like the ones that went on the 1st crusade) were ing invincible by the standards of their time. Knights. however, were also in very limited supply(unlike men-at-arms, sergeants and peasant levies). So when you go fight heretics, you take lots of militias and semi-professional soldiers along with your knights. When you fight Count De Monet for some real-eastate by the Rhine, however, you send your knights to beat the out of his knights and 2 hours of furious hostage taking and mild bruising later he says " it!" and hands over the land. No, seriously, most medieval battles were just that - two lord's knights would go at each-other and eventually one of them gave up. There was, pretty much, no killing(of knights) and lots of prisoners being taken for ransom(because nobody wants to kill Jim, he's everyone's favorite cousin and he always brings that weird Arab herb that makes the sky taste funny to feasts).