Bret Devereaux

"Really fraught"? Medievalists may discuss how the word was used in different eras and whether/when it signified nobility or social rank, but it *always means* someone who was performing or liable for military service.

"Liable for military service" Which meant what...all able bodied men? (yes that was the statute and apparent use in many kingdoms) Nice fraught term you've found there.

No, liability for military service was very rarely conditioned only on being able-bodied in the Middle Ages, but there is a link to "militia". No, hardly a regular usage for "milites" legally or historically. Not really, when "soldiers" comes from "armed man for hire"

It's totally untrue. The entire English state dating back to Anglo Saxon kingdoms had these provisions. Same with the Crusader states. They dominate the literature. It can be about anyone connected to the nobili that the "historians" of the period deigned to write about.

You should try to be more careful with language.

You should try to familiarize yourself with the period. Unlike antiquity you can't hide your questionable analysis and conclusions behind the fragmentary nature of the sources.

And you're totally cool with 'milites' covering armed mariners despite the fact that it rarely did in the middle ages?

It means exactly that in some of the Roman sources, which seems relevant to our understanding of the term. Cf. Plaut. Capt. 1.2.61 Angry certainty is almost always unbecoming in a historian.