Talk:Man-at-arms
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Men-at-arms types
Should we indicate the types or general classificatiosn given to armsmen or should we make idependant articles for theses? For exemple the Coustillier/Coutilier, Halberdier, Voulgier, Guisarmier, Couleuvrinier and what-not? Judging from what little information is realy cracteristic of one of there "types" they should remain part of this article. Some like the Couleuvrinier are a bit harder to place.Dryzen 15:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC) This first part of this article contradicts the last part. The first used out of date Victorian definitions and the end used a more correct period concept but in a mudled way. To clarify a man-at-arms is: a knight, an esquire or any gentleman fully armed and mounted (though not always fighting mounted)inclusively.