How many knights where at any one point and how did they afford...

[sleeperul]

How many knights where at any point(approximate) when they where relevant to warfare and how did they afford their equipment.
Even now the equipment with the advances in technology are quite expensive in the tens of thousands of dollars for armor and weapons.Back then they must have been even more but how did knights afford that equipment an how many where they?

 

[pithorr]

How many knights where at any point(approximate) when they where relevant to warfare and how did they afford their equipment.
Even now the equipment with the advances in technology are quite expensive in the tens of thousands of dollars for armor and weapons.Back then they must have been even more but how did knights afford that equipment an how many where they?

They had dozens of villages with peasants working for it.

 

[sleeperul]

They had dozens of villages with peasants working for it.

Each and every knight had dozen of villages?
I mean I saw how big of an barony is and does not have dozen of villages.
3 villages some even one sometimes 5.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

They had dozens of villages with peasants working for it.

To sustain a knight with a horse one needed 4-8 moderate sized farms normaly in the high middle ages.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

How many knights where at any point(approximate) when they where relevant to warfare and how did they afford their equipment.
Even now the equipment with the advances in technology are quite expensive in the tens of thousands of dollars for armor and weapons.Back then they must have been even more but how did knights afford that equipment an how many where they?

Depends, armor and horses been very expensive.
A simple sword was quite affordable in comparison.

One has to understand however that knights been a social class first and foremost. Even if you dont have a horse, use a bucket for your head and a spear as a weapon you are still a knight. What I mean is that not everyone had anything in pristine condition.

Some knights could barely afford a horse others could bring their own cavalry with them.

 

[Avernite]

Depends, armor and horses been very expensive.
A simple sword was quite affordable in comparison.

One has to understand however that knights been a social class first and foremost. Even if you dont have a horse, use a bucket for your head and a spear as a weapon you are still a knight. What I mean is that not everyone had anything in pristine condition.

Some knights could barely afford a horse others could bring their own cavalry with them.

And when taking that into account, a quick google search shows a torso-and-arms Chainmail armour (of the less fancy type) can be bought for about 100 dollars; you'd need some leather armour to go with it, but certainly for part of the middle ages that could serve as a knight's armour.

Presumably in the middle ages it was a bit more expensive, but then it'd be alright to spend months or years of wages on getting such a piece of armour, since A) it lasts and B) most of those wages come from the peasants, not the knight.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Most pre-industrial agrarian societies will have a ratio of farmers being something like 85-95% of the population, and the remainder being everything else. So your professional military caste is going to be a (very small) proportion of that.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Presumably in the middle ages it was a bit more expensive, but then it'd be alright to spend months or years of wages on getting such a piece of armour, since A) it lasts and B) most of those wages come from the peasants, not the knight.

There are some prices here: http://web.archive.org/web/20110628....edu/halsall/source/medievalprices.html#ARMOR

In late 14th century full set of knight's armour went for as much as feeding a lord for 560 days. If modern price of feeding a "lord" is taken at about 50€ per day it's more comparable to a moderately priced car than cheap mail reproductions.

Though there were probably cheaper variants around than listed there. Otherwise a demand for 12th century freemen with 130+ shillings of property to procure 100 shilling mail (per Assize of Arms) seems wholly unreasonable.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

Depends, armor and horses been very expensive.
A simple sword was quite affordable in comparison.

One has to understand however that knights been a social class first and foremost. Even if you dont have a horse, use a bucket for your head and a spear as a weapon you are still a knight. What I mean is that not everyone had anything in pristine condition.

Some knights could barely afford a horse others could bring their own cavalry with them.

I've always seen it said that an average knights armour cost the equivalent of a medium sized family home, although I guess thats a fairly bad comparison because of the wild values of houses in the modern market, but the equivalent of around $200,000-250,000 sounds fairly sensible to me, especially as mining was a slow process and skilled craftsmen were expensive.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I've always seen it said that an average knights armour cost the equivalent of a medium sized family home, although I guess thats a fairly bad comparison because of the wild values of houses in the modern market, but the equivalent of around $200,000-250,000 sounds fairly sensible to me, especially as mining was a slow process and skilled craftsmen were expensive.

Yes, a "simple" chain mail needs helluvalot manhours from a skilled craftsman. Not to mention the high price of iron and another craftsman making the rings.

 

[pithorr]

Each and every knight had dozen of villages?
I mean I saw how big of an barony is and does not have dozen of villages.
3 villages some even one sometimes 5.

To sustain a knight with a horse one needed 4-8 moderate sized farms normaly in the high middle ages.

I thought the knight was that fancy dressed guy in the plate armour mounted on the horse, leading a numerous retinue. Not a man-in-arms travelling with a rusted sword.
Such knight needed some (well maybe I a bit exagerrated with that dozens ) villages to afford all of it.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I thought the knight was that fancy dressed guy in the plate armour mounted on the horse, leading a numerous retinue. Not a man-in-arms travelling with a rusted sword.
Such knight needed some (well maybe I a bit exagerrated with that dozens ) villages to afford all of it.

Certainly such knights existed too but most had no castle or much land. It also varies in time and location of course.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

I've always seen it said that an average knights armour cost the equivalent of a medium sized family home, although I guess thats a fairly bad comparison because of the wild values of houses in the modern market, but the equivalent of around $200,000-250,000 sounds fairly sensible to me, especially as mining was a slow process and skilled craftsmen were expensive.

In the link I posted (peasant's) cottage is two pounds, urban rowhouse is up to five pounds and craftsman's house is ten to fifteen (all in early 14th century). All are cheaper than knight's armour in late 14th century which is 16 and 1/3 pounds. In fact the more modest housing is still no more expensive than a 12 century suit of mail which is at 5 pounds.

So it does seem a fair analogy.

It also occurs to me that the Assize of Arms only counted movable property and income, so perhaps the demand for the freemen in medium wealth range (10+ marks or ~130+ shilling) to procure mail at the listed cost (i.e. 100 shillings or 5 pounds) was not quite as unreasonable as I first thought.

 

[Avernite]

I thought the knight was that fancy dressed guy in the plate armour mounted on the horse, leading a numerous retinue. Not a man-in-arms travelling with a rusted sword.
Such knight needed some (well maybe I a bit exagerrated with that dozens ) villages to afford all of it.

At least in the Netherlands, what you are thinking of would be a lord or baron, i.e. more than a knight.

 

[Klausewitz]

Certainly such knights existed too but most had no castle or much land. It also varies in time and location of course.

To expand on this:
The 'Middle Ages' are about 500 years and most of Europe.
During that time there was everything from 'household knights' who basically fought for food and housing and were equipped by their lord to knights with stipends (i.e. no land but simply a lump sum from their lord for their expenses and material) to 'Ritterschaften' which in Germany were small feudal holdings measured to allow on knight to support himself (IIRC those were the smallest unit of land bestowed to a person for their service) to magnates fielding large troops of 'men-at-arms' (basically knights without the feudal title) and everything in between.
Prices for horses and equipment also varied widely. While economics of scale mostly did not come into play since the guilds controlled the prices, there were differences based on how many horsebreeders or armorsmithes there were around and what kind of quality you wanted.

 

[Kovax]

The concept of a "knight" varies over time. During the Roman era, it referred to a social class, and while a knight was obligated for military service, the required minimum equipment varied over time and service could sometimes be avoided by paying a substitute to fulfill their obligation. Once the feudal period set in, knights were either billeted on land which they controlled as a fief under a higher noble, or else were housed and fed at the expense of the king or other noble. That could constitute a couple of villages with sizable farms, or no land at all. I'm not sure if it's even possible to make a reasonable estimate as to the number of knights in many parts of Europe.

 

[sleeperul]

The concept of a "knight" varies over time. During the Roman era, it referred to a social class, and while a knight was obligated for military service, the required minimum equipment varied over time and service could sometimes be avoided by paying a substitute to fulfill their obligation. Once the feudal period set in, knights were either billeted on land which they controlled as a fief under a higher noble, or else were housed and fed at the expense of the king or other noble. That could constitute a couple of villages with sizable farms, or no land at all. I'm not sure if it's even possible to make a reasonable estimate as to the number of knights in many parts of Europe.

Is it really impossible? We are talking medieval europe I do not think there where 50 years of peace anywhere there. Pretty sure the knights where there in wars part of the army why is it not possible to estimate?

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Is it really impossible? We are talking medieval europe I do not think there where 50 years of peace anywhere there. Pretty sure the knights where there in wars part of the army why is it not possible to estimate?

Because they were not at war all at once. In the first place the feudal contract stipulated that men could be called up only for certain length of time per year. And beyond that there are logistical reasons why they were not, e.g. time needed to amass all the soldiers of the realm, costs and other difficulties of providing for them during the campaign and so on.

 

[Klausewitz]

Is it really impossible? We are talking medieval europe I do not think there where 50 years of peace anywhere there. Pretty sure the knights where there in wars part of the army why is it not possible to estimate?

Because medieval book keeping either did not survive or is shoddy, while medieval historiography is a bit dodgy when it comes to the numbers.
European populations in the middle ages is already a guessing game. Mostly it is extrapolation and guessing, i.e. how many people could have been fed, how large are the settlements we have numbers from, shake, stir, get out a number.
Knights is one to two layers removed from that. How many people per hundred were knights? What is a knight really?, etc. etc.

 

[Henry IX]

Because they were not at war all at once. In the first place the feudal contract stipulated that men could be called up only for certain length of time per year. And beyond that there are logistical reasons why they were not, e.g. time needed to amass all the soldiers of the realm, costs and other difficulties of providing for them during the campaign and so on.

It also depends what is meant by 'knight'. Many of the fighting men were various forms of non-noble professionals such as men-at-arms, serjents, yeomen and city militia. To even guess what proportion of combatants were knights is really just a stab in the dark.

A very approximate guess can be made by taking the population of Europe (~70 million during the 13th century) and assuming a proportion of around 2% based on what we know of settlement patterns, you wind up with 1.5 million knights. This should give a very rough guide as to the total number.