Quote Originally Posted by Galloglaich View Post
In the Low Countries (roughly today's Belgium and Holland), Scandinavia, Poland, Germany and Central Europe in general, it was allowed, and basically expected, that all male citizens, including partial citizens like journeymen- would carry swords at least when dressed formally so to speak. I.e. not necessarily while they were working.
A somewhat related question: there seems to be a general idea that the sword, due to a combination of being more difficult to make (and therefore more expensive) and more difficult to learn to use effectively compared to weapons like spears and axes, was largely a mark of nobility. Obviously, based on this statement, "middle class" city dwellers (not sure if that's a completely correct term, but it seems to fit people between peasants and nobles) commonly carried swords. Is this something that was at least somewhat true in the dark ages/early medieval times and people assume it is still true past when it historically was, or is the entire concept utter hogwash?

But citizens were not everybody in town - it's something like 30-40% of the male population if you include journeymen. Citizens visiting from other towns also generally had the right, as did nobles so long as they were on good terms with the town (in some cases where there was an ongoing feud with a regional prince, for example between Cologne, Bremen, or Strasbourg with the Archbishop - his vassals were specifically prohibited from entering the town armed).

Commoners on lower status, including servants, were not necessarily allowed to walk around armed. This would depend on the specific town but some had rules requiring them to leave their weapons at the inn, and the innkeeper would be in charge as a representative of the legal authority of the town to keep an eye on them. Servants could be armed by their master or employer, at the discretion of the latter, but then that master was legally liable for their actions with the weapons. I.e. if they killed or wounded somebody he could be prosecuted. Same for apprentices and guild masters. Some guild masters armed their apprentices at least some of the time (like when traveling or when involved in a feud) but if they did they were responsible if the apprentice was involved in violence.
So what distinguishes a citizen from a non-citizen in medieval towns? And what do the non-citizens do (I believe you mention "servants and day laborers" later on)? Regarding the guilds, how prevalent were they? I get the impression that most tradespeople would be a member of their respective guild. How much influence did the guild masters have over members of the guilds?

The majority of town populations in medieval and Early Modern Central Europe were female, depending on the town it seems like 50-60%,
This is an interesting bit of information. Any idea as to why that was the case?


All of these questions with the caveat that I understand they probably don't have simple answers and varied quite a bit depending on exactly when/where you're talking about.

Also, just wanted to say I enjoy it when one of your posts comes up (as well as some other posters here who seem to be well versed in medieval history). Very informative, and they always make me realize the medieval world was far more complex and varied than most people (myself included) seem to realize. Often times they open up questions I wouldn't have thought of beforehand.