Talk:Man-at-arms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

[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 The first used out of date Victorian definitions and the end used a more correct period concept but in a mudled way.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.