The 'What is a man-at-arms?' thread reminded me of a question I've been wanting to ask for a while now. What is the historical and SCA definition of a Sergeant? What kingdoms do and don't practice Sergeantry, and what are the regional differences? Thanks.
~Wil
What is a Sergeant?
-
Konstantin the Red
- Archive Member
- Posts: 26713
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Port Hueneme CA USA
In the middle ages, a Sergeant is a professional soldier -- one who makes soldiering his job, whether it's locally quiet or whether there's a war on. He's not an aristocrat like the knight or squire. Naturally, he'd be the one teaching the peasant levy how to fight, stay in formation, and suchlike drill, and such inspection functions as making sure Jock o' the Mire hasn't lost the kettle-hat issued him.
------------------
"The Minstrel Boy to the war is gone..."
------------------
"The Minstrel Boy to the war is gone..."
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi Brodir,
Traditionaly during the high middle ages, a seargent is a (normally) cavalryman not quite so well equiped as a knight, on a horse of lesser quality (a simple eques rather than a rouncey on a remunda roll, worth about 1/4 the price), or riding a rouncey when destriers first make there appearance. The fellows behind the knights in the Macjowski bible on horseback wearing kettlehats rather than great helms, to give you a visual reference.
A seargentry was a feudal status below that of a knight, land with a smaller rent attatched to it as income, but held in feudal tenure. In some counties there were foot seargencies, but it was by no means a universal phenomenon, and they quickly dissapear from the scene.
They did not fill the function of a modern NCO, later in the middle ages various constabulary of towns were given the title of seargent, as well as officials of courts. The term is rarely found past the mid-late 13th century in it's original meaning, as the holdings to support a seargent did not subdivide amongst heirs well, and as military equipment became more expensive, the revenue from said lands was insufficient to provide adequate equipment to fulfil the function. The military function is taken over by Esquires and the gentry in the late Middle Ages.
While drill in some form existed for cavalry throughout the middle ages, there is little evidence of it for infantry until the mid-late 14th century. In point of fact the most serious disasrters befalling communes fighting against the feudal host occur when the feudal cavalry mek the townsmen leave their static defensive positions and attack them. This is due in large part to the poor manouverability of the infantry, which tended to lose it's cohesiveness if forced to manouver, due in large part to inadequate drill. It is only in the late 14th century we hear of the Swiss and the Flemish townsmen being able to take on normal armies out of a defensive position (note Cortrai, where the Flemings won when the impetuous French chivalry attacked them on horseback through a marsh - when they had to advance to meet the French army in later battles they were handed their heads).
Anyhow, feudal seargents were not drill seargents, it was a rtroop type like a dragon or lancer of later eras.
------------------
Bob R.
Traditionaly during the high middle ages, a seargent is a (normally) cavalryman not quite so well equiped as a knight, on a horse of lesser quality (a simple eques rather than a rouncey on a remunda roll, worth about 1/4 the price), or riding a rouncey when destriers first make there appearance. The fellows behind the knights in the Macjowski bible on horseback wearing kettlehats rather than great helms, to give you a visual reference.
A seargentry was a feudal status below that of a knight, land with a smaller rent attatched to it as income, but held in feudal tenure. In some counties there were foot seargencies, but it was by no means a universal phenomenon, and they quickly dissapear from the scene.
They did not fill the function of a modern NCO, later in the middle ages various constabulary of towns were given the title of seargent, as well as officials of courts. The term is rarely found past the mid-late 13th century in it's original meaning, as the holdings to support a seargent did not subdivide amongst heirs well, and as military equipment became more expensive, the revenue from said lands was insufficient to provide adequate equipment to fulfil the function. The military function is taken over by Esquires and the gentry in the late Middle Ages.
While drill in some form existed for cavalry throughout the middle ages, there is little evidence of it for infantry until the mid-late 14th century. In point of fact the most serious disasrters befalling communes fighting against the feudal host occur when the feudal cavalry mek the townsmen leave their static defensive positions and attack them. This is due in large part to the poor manouverability of the infantry, which tended to lose it's cohesiveness if forced to manouver, due in large part to inadequate drill. It is only in the late 14th century we hear of the Swiss and the Flemish townsmen being able to take on normal armies out of a defensive position (note Cortrai, where the Flemings won when the impetuous French chivalry attacked them on horseback through a marsh - when they had to advance to meet the French army in later battles they were handed their heads).
Anyhow, feudal seargents were not drill seargents, it was a rtroop type like a dragon or lancer of later eras.
------------------
Bob R.
In An Tir the rank of Sergeant is given out by individual baronies. A Sergeant is a non-belted fighter sworn in fealty to a landed Baroness.
Back when An Tir was a Principality of the West it was very difficult for up and coming fighters to get exposure to the Knights council. This made getting knighted very difficult if one did not travel to events in California a lot.
The rank of Sergeant was created as a way of telling the far off Knights of the West that the individual had proven himself in all of the requirements of knighthood except skill in arms. In this way the knights only had to observe someone's physical prowess to decide whether to knight someone - if he was a Sergeant he had already proven the rest.
Thats the way it was explained to me anyways...
Cedric
Back when An Tir was a Principality of the West it was very difficult for up and coming fighters to get exposure to the Knights council. This made getting knighted very difficult if one did not travel to events in California a lot.
The rank of Sergeant was created as a way of telling the far off Knights of the West that the individual had proven himself in all of the requirements of knighthood except skill in arms. In this way the knights only had to observe someone's physical prowess to decide whether to knight someone - if he was a Sergeant he had already proven the rest.
Thats the way it was explained to me anyways...
Cedric
-
Pietro da San Tebaldo
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1740
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Cleveland OH USA
- Contact:
A sergeant is a non-noble warrior. To restate that: Someone besides a noble who makes his living by providing military services. The term is derived from the latin 'serviens' Servant (note: modern NCO's do not, for some reason, appreciate having this fact pointed out to them. Nor do they like being told to 'bring me the paper'. Trust me on this.)
Sergeant appears to be a term applied in the lands West of modern-day Germany. In Germany you had a similar institution whose members were referred to as 'ministeriales'. The ministeriales were, literally, unfree warrior servants. In much the same way that the jannisaries or mamelukes were unfree warrior servants.
Both of these terms become neccesary because in the 12th Century knights had become members of the nobility and they were quickly shutting the door on new members. Frederick Barbarossa, for example, forbade the sons of priests or peasants to accept the accolade of knighthood. So skilled men-at-arms who lacked the pedigree to become knights became sergeants.
As the process continued (with knights rising higher in the aristocracy) and the population grew it no longer became necessary to have sergeants or ministeriales. There were plenty of people who were qualified (by birth) to be knights, who were not yet actually knights, to fill the role of the sergeant. Chef, I think, has well described exactly what that role was.
The SCA doesn't really use the term in the period sense. An Tir has sergeants (you can find the testing requirements online). The Middle Kingdom has the Order of the Red Company (whose members may style themselves as sergeants). Most other kingdoms have an order for really capable fighters who may or may not yet be knighted. The Outlands has the Order of the Iron Hart (whose members may style themselves as 'Thegn of the Iron Heart'.) Ansteorra has Centurions. Calontir has Huscarls. I think Atlantia has Sea Stags.
Sergeant appears to be a term applied in the lands West of modern-day Germany. In Germany you had a similar institution whose members were referred to as 'ministeriales'. The ministeriales were, literally, unfree warrior servants. In much the same way that the jannisaries or mamelukes were unfree warrior servants.
Both of these terms become neccesary because in the 12th Century knights had become members of the nobility and they were quickly shutting the door on new members. Frederick Barbarossa, for example, forbade the sons of priests or peasants to accept the accolade of knighthood. So skilled men-at-arms who lacked the pedigree to become knights became sergeants.
As the process continued (with knights rising higher in the aristocracy) and the population grew it no longer became necessary to have sergeants or ministeriales. There were plenty of people who were qualified (by birth) to be knights, who were not yet actually knights, to fill the role of the sergeant. Chef, I think, has well described exactly what that role was.
The SCA doesn't really use the term in the period sense. An Tir has sergeants (you can find the testing requirements online). The Middle Kingdom has the Order of the Red Company (whose members may style themselves as sergeants). Most other kingdoms have an order for really capable fighters who may or may not yet be knighted. The Outlands has the Order of the Iron Hart (whose members may style themselves as 'Thegn of the Iron Heart'.) Ansteorra has Centurions. Calontir has Huscarls. I think Atlantia has Sea Stags.
Hey Chef,
I believe your view of infantry combat is slightly outdated. Since the 19th century military historians have dismissed the medieval period as irrelevant and unimaginative. Until recently little accurate work had been done and now things are going so fast nobody can keep up with the new texts. The following link looks at the myths regarding medieval war that have recently been debunked. The cutting edge research is showing that there was no revolution in infantry combat. It was always present just not mentioned as strongly in an age where chivalric deeds were celebrated in literature.
All my books are packed for a move to Maryland but I recall Italian sources showing infantry training going out of style in the 14th century not the other way around.
http://www.deremilitari.org/mcglynn.htm
Theodore
I believe your view of infantry combat is slightly outdated. Since the 19th century military historians have dismissed the medieval period as irrelevant and unimaginative. Until recently little accurate work had been done and now things are going so fast nobody can keep up with the new texts. The following link looks at the myths regarding medieval war that have recently been debunked. The cutting edge research is showing that there was no revolution in infantry combat. It was always present just not mentioned as strongly in an age where chivalric deeds were celebrated in literature.
All my books are packed for a move to Maryland but I recall Italian sources showing infantry training going out of style in the 14th century not the other way around.
http://www.deremilitari.org/mcglynn.htm
Theodore
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi Theodore,
I think I am much wider read than you are giving me credit for (I am a member of De Rei Militari as well). My view of infantry combat is very current - I do not think you understand my initial post at all. The question is "What is a Seargent" - not the evolution of infantry combat. I have read Bertram Hall, and a host of other sources as well - the current battle to a general readership is to inculcate the information that cavalry did not cease to be useful post 1340, and that there was a resurgence of mounted warfare from the 1430's onward in Continental Europe. Myopic Anglocentricisim leads modestly read people to believe infantry warfare eclipsed cavalry warfare as they are familiar mostly with English sources and English scholarship.
That said, I can provide you with primary documentation regarding infantry drill, or lack therof prior to the mid-late 14th century in Northern Europe. Italy is an entirely different case altogether - you cannot make wide sweeping statements and be correct as a general rule.
In instance, during an amphibious operation in the 1430's during the conflict between Phillip le Bon and the Duke of Gloucester over the succession of the counties of Holland and Zeeland, the Dutch town militia 'were shocked to see the discipline of the English archers, who marched in step' (this can be found in Vaughans "Phillip the Good, along with an entire primary account of the battle of Doonatz). Marching in step is the basic core of drill, yet it is unknown the the Dutch troops as late as 1436.
Infantry drill as we understand it does not appear in northern Europe prior to the mid-late 14th century. If you can prove otherwise, please do - I'd love to see the documentation for it. Mention of Swiss drill appears in the late 14th century.
------------------
Bob R.
I think I am much wider read than you are giving me credit for (I am a member of De Rei Militari as well). My view of infantry combat is very current - I do not think you understand my initial post at all. The question is "What is a Seargent" - not the evolution of infantry combat. I have read Bertram Hall, and a host of other sources as well - the current battle to a general readership is to inculcate the information that cavalry did not cease to be useful post 1340, and that there was a resurgence of mounted warfare from the 1430's onward in Continental Europe. Myopic Anglocentricisim leads modestly read people to believe infantry warfare eclipsed cavalry warfare as they are familiar mostly with English sources and English scholarship.
That said, I can provide you with primary documentation regarding infantry drill, or lack therof prior to the mid-late 14th century in Northern Europe. Italy is an entirely different case altogether - you cannot make wide sweeping statements and be correct as a general rule.
In instance, during an amphibious operation in the 1430's during the conflict between Phillip le Bon and the Duke of Gloucester over the succession of the counties of Holland and Zeeland, the Dutch town militia 'were shocked to see the discipline of the English archers, who marched in step' (this can be found in Vaughans "Phillip the Good, along with an entire primary account of the battle of Doonatz). Marching in step is the basic core of drill, yet it is unknown the the Dutch troops as late as 1436.
Infantry drill as we understand it does not appear in northern Europe prior to the mid-late 14th century. If you can prove otherwise, please do - I'd love to see the documentation for it. Mention of Swiss drill appears in the late 14th century.
------------------
Bob R.
Sorry Chef,
I did misinterpret what you were saying and responding to. I thought you meant drill in the general unit training sense not the specific "drill" that evolved. I kind of overshot that into the infantry were "poor peasant boys with no armour or training and sharpened sticks."
As for the relevance of Italian practice I believe it had to have some effect. There was a significant amount of military contact between Italy and both France and Germany. In addition, in the thirteenth century large numbers of northern european knights served as mercenaries in Italian armies that had large contingents of civic militia infantry. I think their contact had to provide some tactical lessons.
As for the Anglocentrism, I agree with you. We have to take a combined arms look at the period, the infantry was effective earlier than many think and cavalry was effective for a few hundred years after the longbow disappeared.
Theodore
I did misinterpret what you were saying and responding to. I thought you meant drill in the general unit training sense not the specific "drill" that evolved. I kind of overshot that into the infantry were "poor peasant boys with no armour or training and sharpened sticks."
As for the relevance of Italian practice I believe it had to have some effect. There was a significant amount of military contact between Italy and both France and Germany. In addition, in the thirteenth century large numbers of northern european knights served as mercenaries in Italian armies that had large contingents of civic militia infantry. I think their contact had to provide some tactical lessons.
As for the Anglocentrism, I agree with you. We have to take a combined arms look at the period, the infantry was effective earlier than many think and cavalry was effective for a few hundred years after the longbow disappeared.
Theodore