Quote Originally Posted by Fortinbras View Post
I have a couple questions about professionalism in Medieval armies.

First off, would it be fair to say that housecarls where essentially an early incarnation of knights? If not, what are the important differences between knights and housecarls?
I think there are actually some close similarities. The most significant difference is that the huskarl is usually infantry whereas knights are typically cavalry. There are some other social and legal differences in status, which in some ways would be equivalent, but huskarls from my understanding are typically also part of the immediate entourage of a given Lord (a Thegn or an Eorl) whereas knights might be the foreman or manager of a distant fiefdom or his own estate independently or semi-independently.

You know Vikings were active in the East as well as the British Isles and the West, and in Russia there was an interesting kind of in-between status called the Druzhina.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhina

Rathere than being independent like the Varjag / Varangian groups, these guys were the Vassals of a Kynaz (Prince) and they fought as cavarly.

This is a pattern you will see a lot, infantry tends to come from towns (especially) and from free peasants. Cavalry is associated with the nobility and their henchmen.

What about ministerales? Functionally, what where the differences between ministerales and "free" knights in places like England?
Depends on the time period. A ministeriales in the early days were part of a direct entourage of some Lord or Estate, but later on they were often more independent. That dividing arrives when the henchmen in question gets put in part of a stronghold which has some real defensive value. Then inevitably, they tend to become a little more autonomous, may swich allegiences and so on.

But overall I think there may not have been all that much difference. These terms tend to be less precise in period.

G