The medieval fantasy genre has a very broad list of tropes that are unlikely to be all correct. Of the following list, which have basis in medieval European history, and which are completely fictitious?
Apologies if this violates any rules of this subreddit.
Were there real Spymasters in the courts of Medieval European monarchs?
Not really. It was rarely an official position. Someone could be tasked with it, but they usually had another position primarily.
Would squires follow knights around, or just be seen as grooms to help with armor and mounting?
Squires were noblemen of their own, and would only serve as a man-servant of sorts for a short time while they were young. Usually they were knights in all but name, riding the same horses, wileing the same weapons and being clad in the same armour. Knights usually had man-servants to help them keep their horses, arms and armour and protect their tent or camp. In many cases, the knight would have a small retuny of men-at-arms as well as servants when travelling or going to war.
Would armored knights ever fight off horseback?
Yes, this was common. The idea of a knight being so heavy he needed a crane to get into the saddle is a myth. It was easy to do cartwheels in gothic plate armour, since it distributet the weight evenly over the body and each part was fixed to the body part it protected. See for example this video of two men re-enacting a military manual of fighting on foot in full plate armour.
Were brothels as common as in George R. R. Martin and Terry Prachett's books?
Not really. Fantasy and romanticist medieval ideas tend to overestimate the urbanisation of medieval Europe. While there surely were brothels in the larger cities, most people lived in small, rural villages or on manors.
Would most people in very rural agrarian populations be aware of who the king was, and what he was like?
Yes, they would most likely be aware of him. His name would be invoked for tax collection and official business. He would be prayed for in church and his profile would be on the coins if his nation minted their own. Alms and donations could be done in his name, he could recruit or conscript for war, undertake great tasks (pilgrimages, crusades, war, castle or cathedral consctruction etc) and rumours would filter down about him. Depending on what he did and how close those commoners were to what was being done, they would be aware of his actions.
Were blades ever poisoned?
Rarely. Most potent poisons expire and lose their lethality quickly. There's also a risk of the smalles little cut when you hande the blade - especially in a struggle - killing you as the assassin as well. Poisons were rare and expensive and could be pretty easily traced, so most would just take their chances that another stab or two would do the job better than a poisouned blade.
Did public inns or taverns exist in 11th-14th-century Western Europe?
Yes, but not as depicted in romanticist medieval texts or fantasy, with a boar over the fire, a bard and the local population meeting to drink, tell tales, eat, dance and be merry. Most inns were a simple farmhouse where the farmer offered you a place and fodder for your horse (should you have one) a place in his bed (most shared beds during this era) and sharing the meal of him and his family. The modern idea of a medieval inn or tavern is more akin to English 17th and 18th century stagecoach inns.
Would the chancellor and "master of coin" be trained diplomats and economists, or would these positions have just been filled by associates or friends of the monarch?
Education was not formal in those days. Most well-off nobility would have tutors teaching them language, mathemathics, agriculture, religion and other subjects. Having a good education was a mark of pride, and the common tradition of sending your children to relatives or allies (as hostages, sometimes real, sometimes ouf of tradition) and have theme ductaed in another region and family's ways, langauge, estates, agriculture etc was also common. Positions were filled either by cronyism or meritocracy, depending on the monarch, country and time. However, commoners would not be able to afford the education and would certainly not have the contacts to get to such a position either way.
Would two monarchs ever meet together to discuss a battle they would soon fight?
Of sorts. Negotiations between the leaders of two armies were common. Trying to settle the issue without battle, or convincing the other side to retreat or surrender, sometimes by bragging or trying to convince the enemy of your superiority happened rather often, at least when both sides spoke the same language. But they would not agree where the battle would be or how it would play out.
Were dynastic ties as significant, and as explicitly bound to marriage, as A Song of Ice and Fire and the video game Crusader Kings 2 suggest?
Yes, they were significant and important. It was how you formed alliances and expanded your influence.
Were dungeons real?
Yes, there were cellars and dungeons. However, they were mostly used for storage. Keeping prisoners that you would not be able to ransom was uncommon - after all, pigs could eat what you had to feed the prisoner, and prisones you could ransom were kept under guard in far better quarters.
Would torture have been performed by soldiers, or were there professional torturers? How would they learn their craft?
Torture happened by soldiers in the field and by jailors, inquisitors or members of the garrison of a castle. Most torture devices from the era are inventions of Victorian era freakshows (that were very popular at the time). Beatings, floggings, suspensions with rope, burning, thumbscrews and the traction table are the only tortures I have been able to confirm was used. There were of course also cruel execution methods, such as the blood eagle or being quartered, but they were not torture methods.
Would most monarchs have jesters and singers permanently at court?
It happened, but it seems to have been more of a renaissance thing than a medieval thing.
On that note, were jesters truly the only people able to securely criticize a monarch?
The only case I have seen is with Henry VIII of England, so I doubt it was common.
Who would courtiers be, usually?
People in official position at the court, people trying to be appointed to an official position, people looking for support for claims and help from the monarch or someone in official position at the court, their servants and their families, mostly. Hostages, wards, moneylenders, merchants supplying the court could also be there.
How would kings earn money and support themselves in the high and late middle ages?
With personal or royal estates, taxes and tolls. In some countries with elective monarchy, royal estates were small and the monarch would have to make do with his personal estates and their income. State and personal income and expenditure were severely blurred at this time.
Would most births be performed by a midwife or just whoever was nearby?
Midwives were often just the local older woman who had been through it herself and helped younger women several times, not a full-time profession, but yes, they would usually be present if the birth was not unexpected and quick.
Were extremely high civilian casualties a common characteristic of medieval warfare, outside of starvation during sieges?
Yes, looting and pillaging the land was standard for a medieval army. Torturing and killing civilians that had hidden food and valuables was common. Executing everyone in a castle, village or town that had refused to surrender once it fell was also common. However, the nature of arms (melee weapons), slow travel and small armies of the time made industrial scale devastation that we are used to since the 30 years' war rare if not unheard of.
How common were battles, in comparison to sieges?
Sieges were far more common - few commanders wanted to risk everything on something as fickle as a field battle.
In England and France, at least, who held the power: the monarch or the nobility? Was most decision-making and ruling done by the king or the various lords? In England and France, at least, who held the power: the monarch or the nobility? Was most decision-making and ruling done by the king or the various lords?
It varied with time and place. Generally, suggestible and weak-willed monarch and young monarchs under regency would be puppets to strong nobility while the other way was the case with strong monarchs. The French nobility swore fealty to their feudal Lord above them, while the English nobility swore fealty to the King, making English King's position a bit stronger. Early medieval French Kings were often only in control of Ile de France itself.
Did public inns or taverns exist in 11th-14th-century Western Europe?
Some posters have declared that this is a myth, and based on romantic notions of the 17th/18th century coaching inn. However, research shows that public inns appeared in Englad in the 12th and 13th century, and were very common in towns by the end of the 15th century. These were primarily urban establishments, and probably none were set up on a remote road in case a lost traveller stumbled by. But research on Southern England suggests that provincial capitals around 1400 could boast of 10 to 20 inns, market towns had 2 to 5 and small towns one.
The article reads: "The conclusion is that in later Medieval England there was a regular provision of inns in accordance with the size and importance of the towns. Inns generated substantial rent and were evidently felt to be worth considerable investment. Innkeepers were among the rich and influential members of the town. Inns played a vital role in evolving and prospering economic, social and political life of the nation in this period.” Source.
However, in smaller towns and villages, inns would not be found. But drinking and socialising still would be. Instead of a permanent Inn, villagers would meet in a tavern. These were pop-up businesses. A villager would brew up a batch of ale iun their home, then put up a sign on his front door to advertise that ale was available, and all the villagers would come round to taste it and have a session. There were many brewers in a village, up and down the street, almost all women, and though baking was a closely controlled seigneurial monopoly, brewing was free for anyone to do, so everyone did, including poor people, since it was cheap and easy to brew up a batchof ale and turn your home into a tavern for a day or two. (Source: Life in a Medieval Village by Frances & Joseph Gies. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1990)
In terms of rooms for rent in a village, travellers would be offered a space in a peasant's own bed, or room in the barn, and to share the peasant's own meagre meal.
Some taverns sold wine, for richer customers, and would hang a sign such as a branch over their door to signify this. These would only be present where there was enough money to pay for wine, s probably only in provincial capitals, or in market towns at market days and festivals.
Were brothels as common as in George R. R. Martin and Terry Prachett's books?
In urban areas, especially ports, probably far more so. But probably not purpose-built ones. Most inns and taverns had prostitutes attached, so customers could partake if they wanted. But having a building that only offered whores, and not a common room for drinking and carousing as well was bad business. Specialisation was rare. If you wanted a private service without the sounds of other customers through the walls, high-class prostitutes might operate out of their own homes, but this would probably be pretty expensive.
Would squires follow knights around, or just be seen as grooms to help with armor and mounting?
The idea of squires as hapless arms bearers and dogsbodies is false. A knight operated as part of a team, called a lance fournois, or furnished lance. The smallest team would be three people, a knight, his squire, and a servant (aka page). Sometimes (and later) it would consist of five people. A squire was a junior knight, usually dressed, armed and fighting exactly the same but with less experience than the veteran knight. They fought together in battle, sometimes when dismounted they would carry a single long lance between them if it was too long for one man to fight with. The knight's servant or page was the one who carried his stuff and stabled the horses, (spending the battle keeping close but out of danger with replacement horses if the knight or squire lost theirs). The servant would never progress to squire or knight. Squire's were sometimes called serjeants.
By the later medieval period (15th century) the lance fournier had developed in some places into a six man team; a noble knight, (or non-noble man-at-arms), a coustillier (junior esquire – a light horseman to support the knight), a non-combatant page, and the support of 3 mounted archers, (also armed with swords and axes and they become indistinguishable from the man-at-arms and coutillier). This later developed into the cavalry 'squad', the most basic building block of the regiments.
One medeval trope I was disappointed to learn was false was that of the cozy inn, this post better clarifies the reality of travel lodging in the middle ages.
As for warfare in England in the early middle ages, most soldiers who possessed horses would ride them to the field but dismount and form a shield wall to fight, this changed following the Norman invasion.
Also in this same time and place, the commoners were more familiar with the local nobility than with the regent due to the structure of early feudalism which more resembled the modern mafia with the king as godfather and his vassals as lieutenants who came of power by way of basic social Darwinism.
Lacey and Danzinger's The Year 1000
EDITED: Spelling and puctuation
Were there real Spymasters in the courts of Medieval European monarchs?
I am not sure if it was widespread, but I do know of Francis Walsingham. He had learned several languages and served under the English Queen, Elizabeth I as a leader of a successful spy-ring within France. One of the things I remember of him, is how he got his hands on two letters directed to the Spanish Ambassador over a planned invasion of England. One discussing the idea, and the second explaining its urgency.
http://archive.org/stream/englishhistoric11edwagoog#page/n44/mode/2up
Were blades ever poisoned?
There are instances of poisoned weapon in history but rarely the stereotypical knife or dagger. Generally if you could stab your target with a knife they would die just as easily as if they weren't due to the lack of proper surgery and infected wounds. Poison was relegated to better applications such as darts or arrows, which could easily administer poison in the event the actual shot does not kill. While not necessarily a medieval example, there has been cases of prisoners who would smear their shivs in feces to act as a sort of poison, likely causing septic shock if the stabbed individual had lived long enough to survive the actual stabbing.
Were dungeons real?
Yes, but not in the "I enter the cave looking around for goblins" way. The Dungeon were usually a section of a castle or keep, usually below ground meant to hold prisoners awaiting sentences or for people who are too important to kill outright like a captured baron. Many dungeons were equipped with devices aimed at torturing people for information or in some other, more religious cases, 'confessions of sin'.
In addition, many did not even look like the typical jail. Many took the form of the oubliette, a wall-less cell surrounded by a deep trench with spikes or no way back up if one fell down. Typically a bridge or rope would be used to transfer prisoners from the exit and the actual cell. There are other forms of oubliette, but this was decidedly the most common form.
Who would courtiers be, usually?
Courtiers were typically of the nobility or clergy, and considered an acquaintance of royalty. There are examples of decorated soldiers as well as professional experts in several fields also acting as a courtier for a liege.
A good historical example of a courtier is Madame de Pompadour, who eventually became the mistress of Louis the 15th, King of France.
[The following example is based around AsoIaF, so if a mod does not see it as valid, feel free to remove it] You seem to read a Game of Thrones, so you would be familiar with the character "Petyr Baelish". He is a good example of what a courtier is. He has no a minor landed title, but is within the court of the King of Westeros, serving as an advisor and steward of sorts.
How common were battles, in comparison to sieges?
Very uncommon. Two armies rarely crossed paths on the field and when they did, erred on the side of caution as men were hard to replace. It was a seen as a waste of human resources and morale to fight a pitched battle over the less dangerous, protracted siege.
If you notice any inaccuracies, I would very much like for you to point them out. I have not covered the feudal system in a long time.
3.Would armored knights ever fight off horseback?
yes. Agincourt saw English men at arms fight on foot. There could be many situations when a knight would be without his horse, injury or terrain which was ill suited for example. The wars of the Roses is quite well known for its engagements involving heavy foot using longswords and pollaxes to fight each other.
19.How common were battles, in comparison to sieges?
Rare. Richard the Lionheart fought about 2-3 battles in his life, but is quite famous for his Seige of Acre and others during his reign.
Pitched battles required both sides to be organised and confident, and to meet at a place where both sides felt they held advantages.
Were there real Spymasters in the courts of Medieval European monarchs?
It was not an official position but spymasters did exist. The best example (though later than Medieval) was Francis Walsingham. I would suggest checking out Stephen Budiansky's book Her Majesty's Spymaster.
A lot of the time it was messengers and ambassadors who acted as spies but in terms of 'modern' spying, that was revolutionised by Walsingham.
Prior to Medieval spying there were agentes in rebus, couriers for the Roman Empire (Austin and Rankov).
Getting historical information about espionage is fairly difficult and quite annoying as a lot of it was secret, not written down, not discussed outside of certain circles, and as such there is no record of it. Even MI6 was denied to be in existence until 1994 (though everyone knew they existed and James Bond movies had been out for decades).
Would armoured knights ever fight off horseback
I know a few people have had input on this already but I would like to add my own.
Yes they did, there are many paintings and accounts of knights fighting dismounted, they even had manuals-at-arms with techniques and drills for dismounted knights to fight with and for the jiu jitsu fans out there they even developed grappling techniques for knight to knight combat!
As an example, during the Battle of Towton in 1461, the bloodiest battle on British soil, King Edward of the Yorkists dismounted his horse and had it sent to the rear. This was a massive gesture, it showed that he would be willing to fight and die on the front lines with his men and was a great boon to the morale of the men. He was saved in the battle by a welsh retainer named Davyd ap Matthew who was promoted to standard bearer. Fighting knights did not just sit at the back of the formation.
Fighting dismounted wasn't easy for the knights, visibility is severely hampered by their helmets and there is little in the way of heat dissipation. Overheating was a serious problem as was dehydration. One officer, Dacre, was killed when he raised his Sallet for a sip of water. An arrow pierced his throat and killed him, legend says it was a boy hiding in a tree with a crossbow avenging his father.
Ever watched a late night sports game and seen the steam rising off the players? This happened also, and in a mass of men it made the poor visibility of knights even worse. Fighting on foot has its advantages but the poor visibility of knights was their major weakness. A knight at the front of a formation would be expected to knock his opponent to the ground and continue advancing, with the weight of his friends pushing him forwards. The men behind him would finish any stragglers where they lay, the knights at the front would be unable to see them and the path ahead at the same time. If the enemy on the ground had some vitality left he would be able to thrust his blade into the groin or armpit of a knight, ending his battle.
King Edward was renown in combat. A tall imposing figure, heavily armored with his sword and an unmatched fighter, the sight of him was enough to scare his opponents and make them think twice about engaging. He was considered a paladin, his fearlessness and ferocity were unmatched and he killed a great many men. An article written ten years after the battle states: "He beat and bore down all afore him that stood in his way and then turned to the range, first one hand, and then on the other hand, in length, and so beat and bore them down, so that nothing might stand in the sight of him and the well assured fellowship that attended truly upon him."
Tl;Dr: fighting dismounted did occur and had its advantages, but it did have many dangers too.
Re the torture, this excerpt from the Peterborough Chronicle, dealing with the anarchic reign of William the Conqueror's grandson Stephen, is interesting:
""Tha the castles waren maked, tha fylden hi mid deovles and yvele men. Tha namen hi tha men the hi wenden that ani god hefden, bathe bi nihtes and be daeies, carlmen and wimmen, and diden heom in prisun and pined heom efter gold and sylver untellendlice pining, for ne waeren naevre nan martyrs swa pined alse hi waeron. Me henged up bi the feet and smoked heom mid ful smoke. Me henged bi the thumbes other bi the hefed and hengen bryniges on her feet. Me dide cnotted strenges abuton here haeved and wrythen it that it gaede to the haernes. Hi diden heom in quaterne that nadres and snakes and pades waeron inne, and drapen heom swa. Sume hi diden in crucethus- that is, in an cheste that was scort and nareu and undep- and dide scaerpe stanes therinne and threngde the man thaerinne that him braecon alle the limes. In mani of the castles waeron lof and grin: that waeron rachenteges that twa other thre men hadden onoh to baeron onne. That was swa maced, that is, faestned to an beom, and diden an scaerp iren abuton tha mannes throte and his hals, that he ne myhte nowiderwardes, ne sitten ne lien ne slepen, oc baeron al that iren. Mani thusen hi drapen mid hungaer. I ne can ne I ne mai tellen alle the wunder ne alle the pines that hi diden wrecce men on this land".
"When the castles were built, then they filled them with fiends and evil men. Then they seized those people whom they thought had any goods, both by night and by day, men and women, and put them in prison and tortured them for their gold and silver with indescribable tortures, for never were martyrs tortured as they were. They were hung up by the feet and smoked with foul smoke. They were hung by the thumbs or the head, and coats of mail were hung on their feet. Knotted strings were tied around their heads and twisted so that it went into the brains. They put them in prison were there were adders and snakes and toads, and killed them in this way. Some they put into a torture-chamber- that is, into a chest that was short and narrow and shallow- and they put sharp stones in it and pressed the person inside so that they broke all his limbs. In many of the castles was a headband and noose that were of chains, a single one of which was enough for two or three men to carry. It was made like this, that is, fastened to a beam, and they put a sharp iron about the man's throat and his neck so that he could not turn in any direction, neither sit, nor lie, nor sleep, but was burdened with all that iron. They starved many thousands to death. I do not know how to, nor am I able to tell all the outrages nor all the atrocities that they inflicted on the miserable people of this country".
(Text is from Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 636, ed. Cecily Clarke, The Peterborough Chronicle 1070-1154 (1958)).
This part was apparently written in 1155, after the death of Stephen, and it's possible that it's exaggerated or fabricated I suppose.
A note says: "The prose of the anonymous monk who wrote this part of the Chronicle is plain and artless, at times even clumsy, but it conveys all the more forcefully the horrors suffered by ordinary people caught up in the violent ambitions of the powerful".
In England and France, at least, who held the power: the monarch or the nobility? Was most decision-making and ruling done by the king or the various lords?
The history of medieval European politics is basically a series of struggles over the balance of power between the Church, the Monarchy (or head dude), and the nobility and it really varied over time. Innocent III was extremely powerful, and King John of England was basically forced to give up some of his his power by the nobility. However at other times, kings had immense power, or the Pope(s) were relatively powerless over the nobility and monarchs of Europe. It is important to remember that power came from money and might. If the vast majority of the nobility refused to collect taxes or recruit for and fight in your wars you were screwed. Basically, think what would happen to the US government if the entire military decided to go home and call it a day (or march on Washington), and everyone stopped paying any taxes. Washington would basically have 0 power or influence.
An interesting example of the power dynamics between the Pope and the Monarchy is the faked "Donation of Constantine", which gave the Pope authority over Western Europe.
For 2. We tend to think of squires as teenaged boys, knights in training, but that is only part of the truth. Historically, there were many men who spent their entire lives as squires, and never became knights.It was quite common to have thirty- and forty-year-old squires, even some in their fifties. Such men perhaps did not have the wealth to become knights (knights had to pay for their own equipment), or perhaps did not have the inclination. They were the medieval counterparts of the career army sergeant who has no desire to be promoted to lieutenant.
Would most monarchs have jesters and singers permanently at court?
Not exactly criticizing, but Jesters had more leeway to speak.
In [A Distant Mirror] (http://books.google.com/books?id=BmRoOIwLWhsC&pg=PT77&lpg=PT77&dq=a+distant+mirror+jester+cowardly&source=bl&ots=H58y9_iqRA&sig=Fwh18yVzxk30Uck_0xeUS2nDaqM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CkdqU_73CIHvoASwsIH4CQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=a%20distant%20mirror%20jester%20cowardly&f=false), Tuchman writes that the court Jester was the only person who was willing/able to break the bad news to Philip VI that his fleet had been defeated by the English.
Were there real Spymasters in the courts of Medieval European monarchs? Would the chancellor and "master of coin" be trained diplomats and economists, or would these positions have just been filled by associates or friends of the monarch?
I know of at least one such case where ona man would hold all of the above positions and more: bishop Nicholas Trąba, royal secretary, diplomat, advisor, and unofficial spymaster-intelligence agent, as well as political provocateur in the service of Vladislavus Yagiello, King of Poland and Lithuania. Trąba not only provoked the Archmaster of the Teutonic Order (Ulric von Jungingen) to start a war with Poland, but he started a "secret war" against the order years ahead. Over the course of several years, he discredited the order on most European courts, turned the papacy against the Knights of the Cross, dissuaded most Western allies from helping them, created channels of weapons production and distribution to arm Polish-Lithuanian forces in secrecy, and advised Yagiello to manouver the Teutonic army to fight on their own land between burned down Stębark and empty Grunwald fields.
Were blades ever poisoned?
Prior to XVIII century, European culture did not know poisons reacting fast enough to be useful in such a fight. The art of poisoning was well known, but limited to putting poison in food and drink.
How common were battles, in comparison to sieges?
In contrary to what /u/vonalder said, prior to the XII century sieges were very uncommon, for the simple reason that neither defenders, nor the attackers could feed themselves for long, and most military campaigns were short raids, unless there was an additional upply of food. The Crusades provide a great example of entire contingents of fine warriors dying without a battle, just because they run out of food and drinkable water, as well as from camp fever.
Would most monarchs have jesters and singers permanently at court?
Jesters -rarely so. The proffesion was tightly related to traveling troupes of entertainers, usually hired either by the townhall or by the local clergy, to entertain the crowds during various festivities. A jester being permamently hired on one court was rare.
As for singers (bards, misennaggers, etc), this kind of "hobby" was very often displayed by highborn men. In fact, post XIII century it became almost expected (or at least very fashionable) that a noble born man should know how to entertain guests, play an intstrument, sing ballads and so on. SO most likely, "the bard" would not be a hired commoner, but rather one of the knights.
Were brothels as common as in George R. R. Martin and Terry Prachett's books?
In larger cities - yes. The stigma on the profession of a prostitute was not as great as we would expect. In fact, many of the brothels were owned, directly or indirectly by the clergy. Similarily to the Victorian Era, Late Medieval people reasoned, that it is safer to allow men to vent their lusts somehow, rather than bother "respectable women". Te 16th century city of Cracov alone had several brothels, and if clerical sources are to be belived, those houses were often patroned by the students of local college, so (given how legendary poor and raggamufin those students often were) the prices were not very high. (A.Jelicz - Life in Medieval Cracov)
Would torture have been performed by soldiers, or were there professional torturers? How would they learn their craft?
After the Crusades, the proffesion of an executioner-torture technician spreads from Germany. It is speculated that the first executioners were captured Moors. The "hangmen" did not form guilds, but they did form a sort of "trade rules", that codified their work. This meant that the "official" executioners were expected to be trained by an older colegue, and provide him with a meisterstück ("masterpiece" - proof of professionalism). Despite often excelent pay, people were unwilling to join that trade, due to the grim reality of it, and related cultural taboos (as an example: an executioner would be shunned from a respectable society, and it would be in bad taste to invite one for a celebration, or even let him share your table). Interestingly, due to their knowledge of anatomy, and developed skill of patching bleeding people back, executioners were often paid to provide medical services and even perform surgery.
The book Her Majesty's Spymaster details what is believed to be the first diplomat to act as a spy as we know it in the modern sense (writing in code, exchanging secret messages, working against his displayed purpose). It may be discredited by now or something but the actions of Sir Francis Walsingham working behind the scenes against Mary Queen of Scots makes for a good read.
This might get got missed, but as a followup question:
How prevalent were minstrels and/or travelling groups of musicians, and were they really as important as books might suggest?
Well that's a lot of questions: (The numbers look good in "edit" mode.)
Medieval kings had spies a plenty, but the title of “Spymaster” is probably recent fiction.
A squire was an apprentice knight. Like all apprentices they helped the master.
Full armor was too heavy to be effective fighting of foot. An un-horsed knight in armor was doomed. The same knight might fight on foot if he had no horse at the moment, but not wearing the full heavy armor.
Brothels have always been common almost everywhere. I haven't read those books.
Most people in Medieval society knew of the king and his overall politics. The king sent enforcers and tax collectors to the landed gentry who relayed the orders to their surfs and villagers.
Poisoning a blade is too slow for combat. Not common. But “ever” is too broad to be wrong. Somebody probably tried it.
Public inns and taverns existed even in small villages since villages were invented.
Medieval kings had tax collectors. Diplomats were then, as today, mostly a friend of the guy in charge. “Economist” is a modern profession.
No. Sometimes they sent a messenger to ask for payment or surrender instead of death.
A dynastic ruler is by definition a close relative of the former king. Traditional marriage is the biological union that creates children and joins two families in blood. In a real physical meaning the child is the marriage because the child carries the blood of both families. To have a dynasty implies marriage and children.
Quite often medieval castles had basement rooms where important prisoners could be kept for a while. They also did have torture devices in some places, often church related. However the concept of a dungeon is mostly fiction.
Today we have legions of blue shirted thugs who all carry and use electric shock torture devices. Almost any kind of “law enforcement” is willing to use torture then and now.
The rich have always hired entertainers to perform. Still do.
Traveling poets and singers went from town to town reciting old poems and new poems. The new poems often gave news of the day, including a political slant. Only the media has changed.
The king's staff and supporters who gained wealth from his position. Same as now.
Kings collect taxes. They often have their own lands and farms too.
In every village there were older local women who functioned as midwife.
That depends on the war and the conqueror. Genghis Khan's armies killed most of the civilians between China and France. It prevented having rebels along his supply routes. Other invaders wanted to keep the local civilians working the land and producing products to sell that could be taxed.
I don't have a percentage. Sieges had been going on for thousands of years. So had battles.
The King had most power and money. The Church also had a lot of power and money. The king sometimes had to obey the church. The king was also dependent on the landed nobles who paid taxes in money and troops. He could, and sometimes did, replace landed nobles with one of his friends or with someone who paid him enough gold. Power was continually in a state of flux. No king ever could sleep well without some worry about possible revolts, assassinations, etc.
