The Armour Archive

I'm reading Kendall's bio on Louis XI, and he is tending to use Man of Arms, rather than Man at Arms.

To my ear, at implies more of a levee/militia person, while of implies a higher status person (middle class/tradesman/property owner) who might be better armed than the other.

Or is it just the way he preferred to present the term?

My guess is that the Fench term he gets from his sources would translate directly as man of arms.
(homme d'armes, or gens d'armes, apologies for spelling I should not even try to write French in public.)
Therefore he uses more accurately translated term rather than one that is usual in English.

Both would in my opinion refer to a professional soldier, and might either refer specifically those who are not knights or be used as general term for mounted, armoured warriors. To know what he means ou ofcourse have to take into account what other terms he uses regularly. (Sergeants, knights ?)

That is me second guessing what somebody else might have meant without actually reading what he wrote.

Of or at - same thing.

Completely different to levees.