Hire A Knight" Form - Clarkson University: Fill & Download for Free

EDIT: I can’t believe I overlooked this SSM entry, but it strongly implies that yes, it is voluntary and can be refused or at least dodged and/or avoided.See:5) Why were men like Meryn Trant, Boros Blount, Preston Greenfield and Arys Oakheart ever accepted as White Swords? Nobody thinks much of their skill.Sometimes the best knights are not eager to take such stringent vows, and you have to settle for who you can get.Citation: The Citadel: So Spake Martin - The KingsguardBolding is mine for emphasis. Robert’s Kingsguard was notably lacking in, ahem, “talent” and GRRM implies that part of this is rooted in some knights just not wanting the job. If the king could force any knight at any time to be a Kingsguard, this wouldn’t be a problem — there’s no “settling” if anyone you appoint or want to appoint can’t turn you down. You might not want to say “no” when you’re put on the spot, but it does look like at least a few guys made it clear they weren’t interested, and this was respected.***Here’s my original answer, if you want to reference it:I think it’s one of those things where technically you could refuse but in practice no one would, because:Most men who would be called to join the Kingsguard wouldn’t refuse it anyway because of the honor and prestige involved. It’s not just a job offer, it’s someone in authority validating a knight’s place among the elitest of the elite. It’s flattery! So in some way turning the offer down is also to implicitly say that you aren’t elite, meaning that your career as a knight would probably be dinged afterward — who wants to hire a knight who all but admitted he isn’t that good, regardless of why he really turned it down? EDIT: I realize this seems to contradict Martin’s point above, but I think the idea is that by the time a guy is about to be appointed to the Kingsguard, it’s already assumed that he wants it, and if he didn’t want it, he likely wouldn’t be appointed anyway. That is to say, I doubt Robert formally appointed a bunch of guys to the Kingsguard who turned him down; their lack of interest was probably conveyed via an informal back-channel. Doesn’t make their lack of joining any less voluntary, just done at an earlier stage than before the formal appointment.My impression is that more often than not the Kingsguard comprises younger sons who otherwise wouldn’t inherit anything (e.g. Arthur Dayne, Aemon Targaryen), and while heirs like Barristan Selmy and Jaime Lannister do give up their inheritances to join, this happens less frequently. Again, just my take; I don’t have actual biographical evidence for each and every Kingsguard. In the cases of younger sons joining the order, the men would have limited opportunities if they didn’t join the Kingsguard, making the decision to accept the offer a no-brainer. EDIT: Yep, quoted from the same SSM linked to above, per GRRM: “It's a plum appointment for a younger son, or a knight from a minor house.”The offer comes from the king and no one wants to be the guy who turned a king down. Even if it’s a king who wouldn’t punish a rejection, you likely won’t get another chance at getting the king’s favor and it could reverberate and lead to other professional fallout. You don’t say no to the king — just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Same reason Ned could have refused the Hand appointment, but didn’t and never would have.

In some ways they actually did. In some ways they didn't. It really depended upon the country and army make up we are discussing.Until the bodkin arrow head was developed arrows were fairly useless against a fully plate armoured knight. The soft tips just skitted off the plate armour. Why? Because the plate was harder than the arrowhead, the bow did not have enough power (until the longbow).Another reason was the knights themselves. The bow was not considered a noblemans weapon and had the reputation of being against the code of chivalry. To such an extent that it was, rumored, law of the French to remove the index and middle finger of anyone firing a bow at a French knight upon capture.Crossbows, while had a significant draw strength, were slow and cumbersome to reset and crossbowmen were lucky to get maybe three shots during a pitched battle on a field. They faired much better from parapets and behind good cover.During this time the English, upon a royal decree, would spend in archery practice on Sunday. This will give you an idea that the longbow was a more prolific weapon than one might think. It was also cheaper to hire bowman for an army over hire a knight.When one looks at the numbers of archers hired many an army had archers in their ranks. To me, i am of the opinion that archers were plentiful, and much more prevalent than one would think.