Talk:Man-at-arms

message: 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)
thread_title: Men-at-arms types

message: none of this page is sourced, who can get some sources?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.169.193 (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - I hope to add more sources.Urselius (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  source 

message: Given that neither of these terms is referred to again, let alone discussed, it seems to me that it is not instructive to present  them in the subject heading.
I am not familiar with either term and it would be interesting to know more about them if they are indeed are significant alternatives for 'man-at-arms' (presumably in English usage only).
Is it possible they are orphans from early versions or have been inserted more recently without consideration of the main article (- which I find convincing and helpful, by the way)?
JF42 (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are very old pieces of text, and I have never come across them as equivalents to a man-at-arms. Urselius (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there any point in keeping them, then? Would you like to do the honours?JF42 (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

text: OK. Urselius (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "also called armsman or coistrel" 

message: The lead sentence says:
 Man-at-arms was a term used from the High Medieval to Renaissance periods to describe a soldier, almost always a professional warrior in the sense of being well-trained in the use of arms, who served as a fully armoured heavy cavalryman.
It seems possible that the term "man-at-arms" was indeed used verbatim in the High Middle Ages in English, but don't we still use this term? The lead sentence doesn't help me know what the term currently means. I don't know anything about this topic, but I would suggest something like:
 A man-at-arms was a soldier between the High Medieval to Renaissance periods who served as a fully armoured heavy cavalryman and was typically a professional soldier well trained in the use of arms.
HTH. --BLebow4500 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the extensive discussion above. Due to widespread misuse in role-playing game literature, and other aspects of popular culture, an erroneous application of the term 'man-at-arms' to mean a 'basic low-grade soldier' has arisen. Also, some men-at-arms served out of feudal duty, they were not paid. They were, however, professional soldiers in the sense that one of their main functions in society was to fight; they were well trained for combat, they were not amateurs in the sense that a peasant given a spear and shield was. I take your point, however, that the man-at-arms was the soldier and not the 'term', and will amend the sentence. Urselius (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeframe of lead