I have some questions about this topic. First of all, I heard that becoming a knight required years of training starting during the childhood as a page and then as a squire. Knights are usually imagined as mounted soldiers but knight was a nobiliary title as well. Did these two definitions always coincide or were there noble knights who didn't train to fight on horses or even fight at all? (or expected to be able to do it at least)
On the opposite, were there "heavy horsemen" who weren't formally knights?
Did all the nobles fight on horses or were there nobles fighting on foot or even using ranged weapons? Did this depend on the rank and on the wealth of the noble?
Were all the knights people who completed that special training or could other people be knighted on special occasions as well such as due to a good performance in battle or similar situations?
How often were new knights appointed? Was there one big event during which several new knights were appointed or was there a ceremony for each individual case or does it depend? Was this done by kings, dukes, counts, barons, by all lords independently of the rank or does it depend?
Do we have historical records about how many knights there were in a certain kingdom at any period during the Middle Ages approximately? (this is a quite broad question, I don't care about a specific place or a specific period)
Were all the male children of a noble couple initiated to the knight training of just some of them depending on the type of education the parents wanted for those children?
Are knight-errant's just fictional idealized figures or did something similar really exist?
Was it possible for a lowborn to ever become a knight, or even just a page/squire as a lowborn kid? If yes, how likely was it? Do we have any historical record of this?
Same thing for women, were there women who became knights? Same as above, do we have any historical record of this?
I know about Joan of Arc who was both a woman and a lowborn and she fought on battlefields but that seems like an extremely exceptional case, but I don't know much about her to be honest
I may have said wrong stuff so correct me in that case. I'm sorry if my use of the word knight is a bit misleading, in my language horseman and knight are often used as synonyms so I may use the word knight incorrectly sometimes. Thanks in advance
A lot of questions, wow. I might attempt to answer some and might come back to answer more later, if that's okay?
First, there was a close association between knighthood and cavalry. The word chivalry is descended from Latin for horseman, so there is a strong association between being a noble and cavalry. Add to that the Roman nobility who had horses were called equestrians, and you can see a strong tie between horseback and nobility. This is because warhorses are expensive (obviously) as well as the various kit that a knight wore, so nobles were some of the only people who could afford horses. However, dismounting was something many knights did, because terrain wasn't always perfect for fighting on large horses. Knights served their noble lords for a fee or fief. This was enough land to support a knight's military activities (meaning: enough to buy him equipment, horses, provide him with aids and whatnot) and it varied depending on how fertile the land was. A knight would then pay this back for a certain number of days of military service per year. Knights were about as low nobility as you could get, practically, at least in the later middle ages. Knighthood became locked behind nobility in the later middle ages, but having a horse could let you become a knight in earlier parts of the period. A knight errant was more of a literary thing than a real type of person, although there were knights that still itched for a fight or wanted to carve out a fief of their own.
Knights could definitely fight on foot, but pitched battle (where both sides decided to engage) were rare, raids and sieges were more common. Knights would have used melee weapons for the most part, mounted or no.
On the granting of knighthood: it was called an accolade, and was a fancy ceremony (some knights may have prayed the night before) and was done by someone like a monarch (I believe it could be done by someone else, however) on the day of some sort of festivity like Easter or Christmas. It might depend on the number of knights in a kingdom, but I could see several knights being accoladed in a single day. You could recieve a knighthood before or after a battle, and it could be a reward for valor or efficiency in battle. Actual knights who did fighting would have probably been second sons or even lower, as they didn't stand a chance of inheriting land to live off of. A second or third son could find an occupation in knighthood (or become a clergyman, be an advisor to his brother/father, or just wile the days away and live off of his family).
Joan of Arc is a special case. She had visions of angels and saints which told her to drive out the English and bring the Dauphin (heir) of France to his coronation (as the Hundred Year's War was going on). In most cases, a farm girl speaking of angels would be ignored, but for the French, who were suffering by this point of the war, they realized Joan could be used to add a religious element to the war. We are not sure how much fighting she actually did, but even if she did nothing other than carrying a banner, she had a remarkable effect on morale and the French did fight more successfully when she was around.