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

[Husein]

5 pounds of silver yearly income for a mere knight?? That's a bag of silver that weighs 2.5 kg. That sounds like way too much money. Where did you get that number from?

That's not that much money. Not to mention that 1-5lb of silver a year was in equivalent value of mostly goods received. Knights really weren't that wealthy, city merchants often far outstripped them. The wealthiest merchants in England had thousands of pounds to play around and they did indeed have it in cash.

https://www.amazon.com/Time-Travelers-Guide-Medieval-England/dp/1439112908

You can find more info here including incomes and equivalent values

 

[JodelDiplom]

Now a roman legionary earned 225 denarius per year, a denarius is about 3 g of silver, so 0.75 kg in total. So our knight with his 0.9-2.25 kg silver is not way out of that league.

A legionary received that silver because he needed to buy his food and clothes though, didn't he? A peasant on the other hand grows his own food and makes his own clothes.

The Roman economy was a cash economy with lots of people who didn't grow food or make their own clothing, and enough money going around to fuel economic exchange between these consumers and the producers (the peasants). When did the medieval economy turn into a cash economy?

I am totally unconvinced that a village of peasants would on average produce so much surplus that it could be sold for several kg of silver? I mean to whom would they all sell it? Almost all people in the middle ages were peasants living in villages who produced what they needed and wouldn't want to or even have the means to buy the produce from the next village over, especially not hard cash. Were there really so many towns with townsfolk who had silver money to purchase all that peasant produce?

 

[Husein]

A legionary received that silver because he needed to buy his food and clothes though, didn't he? A peasant on the other hand grows his own food and makes his own clothes. I am totally unconvinced that a village of peasants would on average produce so much surplus that it could be sold for several kg of silver? I mean to whom would they all sell it? Almost all people in the middle ages were peasants living in villages who produced what they needed and wouldn't want to or even have the means to buy the produce from the next village over, especially not hard cash. Were there really so many towns with townsfolk who had silver money to purchase all that peasant produce?

Average peasant family worked on 40 acres of land when bound to a lord, wealthy peasants farmed around 120. There's plenty of produce. And they did not receive taxes in money but in produce over the entire year.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Average peasant family worked on 40 acres of land when bound to a lord, wealthy peasants farmed around 120. There's plenty of produce. And they did not receive taxes in money but in produce over the entire year.

Okay but produce means, eggs, beans, corn, turnips. Stuff that you can't just store in a barn until the yearly tax payment is due, or sell in bulk to the merchant who comes through the village once every three months.

So are you telling me that the knight didn't actually get 2.5 kg of silver but 2.5 non-existant kg of silver worth of eggs, beans, corn, turnips, hand woven coarse linen shirts, etc? That doesn't actually make the knight rich in any way, he's just the guy who (together with his family, personal servants and horses) feasts on the surplus of his peasants and otherwise wears much the same coarse clothing and shabby shoes as they do. And a sword.

 

[Husein]

Okay but produce means, eggs, beans, corn, turnips. Stuff that you can't just store in a barn until the yearly tax payment is due, or sell in bulk to the merchant who comes through the village once every three months.

So are you telling me that the knight didn't actually get 2.5 kg of silver but 2.5 non-existant kg of silver worth of eggs, beans, corn, turnips, hand woven coarse linen shirts, etc? That doesn't actually make the knight rich in any way, he's just the guy who (together with his family, personal servants and horses) feasts on the surplus of his peasants and otherwise wears much the same coarse clothing and shabby shoes as they do. And a sword.

Yes but you are not getting several tons of turnips at once and you're done with it. A lot of produce like that can also be smoked, salted, pickled and preserved in various way for use troughout the year. More often than not a knight would be receiving or arange for receit of produce from his peasants over the year. You'd get two pounds of butter from John's this week, next week from Matthew, a sheep for the feast from James and on it went. The total value received added up to (up to) 2.5 kg of silver. Some lords would however receive their taxes in full, which they would then sell for silver.

And yes you are correct in your assesment of what a knight was. Knights didn't have that much valuable property, they didn't have changes of clothes to impress others, they had to manage and govern their incomes carefully. War was the best way for making a quick buck. Capture a foeman and you made your years worth of income in just his armor and horse.

 

[pithorr]

Yes, for much of Europe, the 12th/13th centuries quite likely were the best pre-industrial periods to be alive as an ordinary person - warm climate, only a few large wars, and no massive epidemics. Although the following 14th century is dreadful.

You must never have met the Mongols

 

[Herbert West]

So are you telling me that the knight didn't actually get 2.5 kg of silver but 2.5 non-existant kg of silver worth of eggs, beans, corn, turnips, hand woven coarse linen shirts, etc? That doesn't actually make the knight rich in any way, he's just the guy who (together with his family, personal servants and horses) feasts on the surplus of his peasants and otherwise wears much the same coarse clothing and shabby shoes as they do. And a sword.

Yes, thank you, you got it.

Knights are not rich in the sense of having a lot of money to throw around. They are rich in the sense of being kept well fed and well clothed by their underlings, and could devote a significant part of their time to martial arts. They are surplus consuming warriors, and part-time agrarian managers.

 

[Arilou]

I should note that both what a "knight" meant, and what the extent of cash usage in the medieval world varied extremely widely depending on location and time.

 

[JodelDiplom]

I should note that both what a "knight" meant, and what the extent of cash usage in the medieval world varied extremely widely depending on location and time.

In the widest sense a knight is a member of a hereditary warrior class who serves a lord in times of war in exchange for income according to a socially (i.e. not personally) negotiated mutual contract, and who devotes a large part of his time to the exercise of martial and equestrian skills.

So he's not a mercenary, he's not a person who serves his lord according to a personally negotiated contract, martial service is part of what is expected from him, and his status in society in hereditary.

How does that definition fit?

 

[Klausewitz]

I'd stumble a bit at 'not personally negotiated contract'.
While I can see where you are going and agree mostly feudal contracts were very much specific to individuals and got frequently renegotiated.

 

[JodelDiplom]

You must never have met the Mongols

We should all thank Poland for having served Europe so loyally and usefully as a buffer in those times. And Hungary too I guess. And we thank Ögedei Khan for being so nice and dieing just in the right moment.

 

[JodelDiplom]

I'd stumble a bit at 'not personally negotiated contract'.
While I can see where you are going and agree mostly feudal contracts were very much specific to individuals and got frequently renegotiated.

Well I suppose they did personally negotiate the terms of service but much of the general expectations were taken as given, no? Like how when you negotiate a contract for building a house or programming a piece of software, 90% of what makes up for the contract follows established business practices and you just negotiate the details of the product to be delivered, the terms of payment, and the date when it's supposed to be finished.

For the traditional image of the medieval knight it would me much the same, no? There's a general idea of a feudal contract and all that, and if the relationship between lord and knight deviates too much from that we don't call the guy a knight any more, or do we? We might call him a mercenary if he's actually just temporarily in the lord's service, or a general kind of ministerial if there's no expectation of military service, or a household knight if the military service isn't just in time of war but actually all year round, or some kind of hybrid landed man at arms if there's no expectation that the knight actually keeps a horse around.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

In the widest sense a knight is a member of a hereditary warrior class who serves a lord in times of war in exchange for income according to a socially (i.e. not personally) negotiated mutual contract, and who devotes a large part of his time to the exercise of martial and equestrian skills.

Knighthood was rarely hereditary.

 

[Kovax]

Knighthood was rarely hereditary.

I don't know about "rarely" hereditary, but noble birth wasn't a requirement in a lot of places, and was in others. The son of a landed noble (or non-noble knight) almost always had to renew the vows of his father before his liege in order to retain the title and land. Again, what constituted "noble birth" varied to some degree, with the more restrictive cultures (in who is or is not considered to be "nobility") most likely relying more heavily on non-noble knights, and the ones with a bit more latitude having a wider base to draw "noble" knights from.

The main requirement across the board was being granted a "fief" in exchange for a military obligation. Those who were granted an empty title (no actual land) and billeted at the expense of a higher noble would be considered more along the lines of "retainers", even if they were formally called "knights".

 

[Gil galad]

I don't know about "rarely" hereditary, but noble birth wasn't a requirement in a lot of places, and was in others. The son of a landed noble (or non-noble knight) almost always had to renew the vows of his father before his liege in order to retain the title and land. Again, what constituted "noble birth" varied to some degree, with the more restrictive cultures (in who is or is not considered to be "nobility") most likely relying more heavily on non-noble knights, and the ones with a bit more latitude having a wider base to draw "noble" knights from.

The main requirement across the board was being granted a "fief" in exchange for a military obligation. Those who were granted an empty title (no actual land) and billeted at the expense of a higher noble would be considered more along the lines of "retainers", even if they were formally called "knights".

You also have the unfree knights, or ministerialis. Who where basically the property of their liege lord.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I don't know about "rarely" hereditary, but noble birth wasn't a requirement in a lot of places, and was in others. The son of a landed noble (or non-noble knight) almost always had to renew the vows of his father before his liege in order to retain the title and land. Again, what constituted "noble birth" varied to some degree, with the more restrictive cultures (in who is or is not considered to be "nobility") most likely relying more heavily on non-noble knights, and the ones with a bit more latitude having a wider base to draw "noble" knights from.

The main requirement across the board was being granted a "fief" in exchange for a military obligation. Those who were granted an empty title (no actual land) and billeted at the expense of a higher noble would be considered more along the lines of "retainers", even if they were formally called "knights".

Yeah I know.

 

[Arilou]

Knighthood was rarely hereditary.

At least in scandinavia, only a tiny fraction of the "nobility" were "knights". But then again, arguably at least Sweden-Norway was never "feudal" (*opens the "Is feudalism even a thing?" can of worms*)

The main requirement across the board was being granted a "fief" in exchange for a military obligation.

For instance, in Sweden the compensation for military service was tax-exemption: Not a parcel of land, but exemption of taxes on said land. (since taxes had started out as something you paid in lieu of performing other forms of military service, this made sense)

 

[JodelDiplom]

At least in scandinavia, only a tiny fraction of the "nobility" were "knights". But then again, arguably at least Sweden-Norway was never "feudal" (*opens the "Is feudalism even a thing?" can of worms*)



For instance, in Sweden the compensation for military service was tax-exemption: Not a parcel of land, but exemption of taxes on said land. (since taxes had started out as something you paid in lieu of performing other forms of military service, this made sense)

Let's not get side tracked. With all due respect for the Scandinavian nations - your middle ages really weren't like anyone else's middle ages so it's no help to bring up how things were in Sweden when discussing knights and feudalism.

 

[Eusebio]

Let's not get side tracked. With all due respect for the Scandinavian nations - your middle ages really weren't like anyone else's middle ages so it's no help to bring up how things were in Sweden when discussing knights and feudalism.

Sure, but one could say the same for Italy, Russia, Ireland...basically anywhere which isn't northern France.

I'm hardly an expert on the matter, but my Medievalist tutor at uni was quite adamant that feudalism never existed and shouldn't be used as a concept.

 

[The-Doc]

I'm hardly an expert on the matter, but my Medievalist tutor at uni was quite adamant that feudalism never existed and shouldn't be used as a concept.

What do you call it then?