| Author |
Message |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
 Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 6:37 am Post subject: |
 |
|
In the martial arts community, I don't know that we'll ever see an "industry standard" system of rankings. This boils down to many differences between the groups, including on issues of martial lineage and interpretation of the old masters. About the only thing many people in the various groups seem to share is an unwillingness to try to find any common ground. So I don't see a community-wide effort to put a ranking system in place happening anytime soon.
Like with other topics that seem to involve various factions within the hema community, many posters know they're not going to convince anyone on the other side and they're not going to change their own opinion based on what the others have to say. All they can do is state their opinion (once) to try to inform people not involved in this fight, and then move on to more productive discussions. 
Does it really matter what someone calls themselves in another organization? Is it really that big of a deal? Not to me; not by a longshot. It's just not worth arguing over. So with that, I intend to bow out of this thread unless it gets out of hand.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
    |
 |
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | | Did every single period swordsman fighting within their own discipline regard every "master" the same regardless of that "master" being outside his own school, region, or even his own discipline? Of course not! There most certainly was debate. There most certainly was contention. It's the same as today. |
"There most certainly was contention?" Well, I can't think of a better way to explain the matter. Two incidents related in Silver's Paradoxes of Defence would illustrate the point quite well:
| Quote: | | The Vincentio proved himself a stout man not long before he died, that it might be seen in his lifetime he had been a gallant, and therefore no marvel he took upon him so highly to teach Englishmen to fight, and to set forth books of the feats of arms. Upon a time at Wels in Somersetshire, as he was in great bravery among the many gentlemen of good account, with great boldness he gave out speeches, that he had been thus many years in England, and since the time of his first coming, there was not yet one Englishman, that could touch him at the single rapier, or the rapier and dagger. A valiant gentleman being there among the rest, his English heart did rise to hear this proud boaster, secretly sent a messenger to one Bartholomew Bramble, a friend of his, a very tall man of both his hands and person, who kept a school of defence in the town. The messenger by the way made the master of defence acquainted with the mind of the gentleman that sent for him, and of all what Vincentio had said. This master of defence presently came, and among all the gentlemen with his cap off, prayed master Vincentio, that he would be pleased to take a quart of wine with him. Vincentio very scornfully looking upon him, said unto him: "Wherefore should you give me a quart of wine?" "Merry sir" said he, "because I hear you are a famous man at your weapon." Then presently said the gentleman that sent for the master of defence: "He is a man of your profession." "My profession?" said Vincentio, "What is my profession?" Then said the the gentleman, "He is a master of the noble science of defence." "Why," said Vincentio "God made him a good man." But the master of defence would not thus leave him, but prayed him again he would be pleased to take a quart of wine of him. Then said Vincentio: "I have no need of your wine." Then said the master of defence: "Sir I have a school of defence in the town, will it please you to go thither?" "Your school?" said master Vincentio, "What shall I do at your school?" "Play with me (said the master) at the rapier and dagger, if it please you." "Play with you?" said master Vincentio,"If I play with you, I will hit you 1, 2, 3, 4 thrusts in the eye together." Then said the master of defence: "If you can do so, it is the better for you, and the worse for me, but surely I can hardly believe that you can hit me. But yet once again I heartily pray you good sir, that you will go to my school and play with me." "Play with you?" said master Vincentio (very scornfully), "by God let me scorn to play with you." With the word scorn, the master of defence was very much moved, and up with his great English fist, and struck master Vincentio such a box on the ear that he fell over and over, his legs just against a buttery hatch, whereon stood a great black jack. The master of defence fearing the worst, against Vincentio his rising, caught the black jack into his hand, being more than half full of beer. Vincentio lustily started up, laying his hand upon his dagger, & with the other hand pointed with his finger, saying, very well: "I will cause to lie in the Gaile for this geare(?), 1, 2, 3, 4 years." And well said the master of defence: "Since you will drink no wine, will you pledge me in beer? I drink to all cowardly knaves in England, and I think you to be the very most coward of them all." With that he cast all the beer upon him, notwithstanding Vincentio having nothing but his gilt rapier, and dagger about him, and the other for his defence the black jack, would not at that time fight it out: but the next day met with the master of defence in the street, and said unto him: "you remember how misused a me yesterday, you were to blame, me being an excellent man, me teach you to thrust two feet further than any Englishman, but first come you with me." Then he brought him to a mercers shop, and said to the mercer: "Let me see your best silken points." The mercer then did presently show him some of seven groats a dozen. Then he paid fourteen groats for two dozen, and said to the master of defence: "There is one dozen for you, and one dozen for me." |
| Quote: | | Jeronimo: this gallant was valiant, and would fight indeed, and did, as you shall hear. He being in a coach with a wench that he loved well, there was one Cheese, a very tall man, in his fight natural English, for he fought with his sword and dagger, and in rapier fight had no skill at all. This Cheese having a quarrel to Jeronimo, overtook him upon the way, himself being on horseback, did call to Jeronimo, and bade him come forth of the coach or he would fetch him, for he was come to fight with him. Jeronimo presently went forth of the coach and drew his rapier and dagger, put himself into his best ward or Stocata, which ward was taught by himself and Vincentio, and by them best allowed of, to be the best ward to stand upon in fight for life, either to assault the enemy, or stand and watch his coming, which ward it should seem he ventured his life upon, but howsoever with all the fine Italianated skill Jeronimo had, Cheese with his sword within two thrusts ran him into the body and slew him. |
So people from different schools did occasionally challenge each other, and sometims the challenges show that the standards are not the same from school to school. Of course, to that we may add that we should reiterate a point made earlier in this thread: that even if a master can defeat another nine times out of ten, the one real, lethal duel between them may well just be the exception that proves the rule.
I think I'm comfortable with different WMA organizations using different ranking schemes. If there was no uniform standard of skill across the board by then, why should there be one now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Malcolm A
Location: Scotland, UK Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello all,
Having been absent for a few days since I first posted this topic / question, I was somewhat taken aback at the amount of posts that have been added to it.
There has been some spirited discussions going on, some of which were not really what I was after. This however is more due to my not framing my question in a more exact manner.
That said, however ,I have greatly enjoyed the debate, including the bits that I wasn't really after.
Yet again I am amazed at the depth of knowledge that forumites have and fervour with which they will debate issues.
To all of you who have contributed a hearty thank you!
Cheers
Malcolm A
[Still not a Master of Golf]
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | One further problem I see complicating this issue is that a number of schools who reject the title 'master' still use the period rankings of "scholar", "free scholar", and "provost". If this is a study endeavor, and no one can be certified a master, it seems somewhat hypocritical to use those gradings too, as they were bestowed by....masters.
So essentially, by calling yourself a 'director' or 'head instructor' and arrogating the right to make scholars, etc., all you're really doing is acting in the capacity of 'master' (and asserting all the rights appertaining thereto) without declaring as such. Which, I think, in the end just means you've simply decided not to bother with the potential political heat that title might bring. |
A director/leader of an organization may indeed be acting as a headmaster. However, I am sure that everyone taking part in this discussion understands that there is very big difference between calling themself "Headmaster" of a school/organization and calling themself "Master" of swordsmenship. Using titles like "scholar", "free scholar", etc., within a school may be somewhat hypocritical but it is nowhere as hypocritical as someone calling themself "master" of swordsmenship when they have neither the knowledge or the skill level approaching anything close to the skill level and knowledge of the historical master. Not only is it hypocritical, it is just plain silly and an insult to the hard honest efforts to reconstruct these lost arts.
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | I think Nathan has it right - such titles, whether scholar or master really only have objective value within a given organization. They have subjective value outside of it, and that is certainly the case with the Asian arts today (and likely always was). Certainly, in the criticisms of both Liechtenauer and Fiore, we have ample evidence that didn't accord equal respect for everyone practicing as a master. |
If the title only has value within an organizaiton then why do people want the title? Because they do see it as having value beyound their own organizaiton! Consider the men you referred to earlier Ramon Martinez and Paul McDonald, along with Paul's teacher, Andrea Lupo Sinclair: Do either of these men say that they are only a master within their organization? Of course not. Why do you think that someone else will limit themself to only their orgainzation? Have we not already seen the behavior assoicated with the title in the context of the efforts to reconstruct of these lost arts? Do you not remember the thread on SFI in which Andrea Lupo Sinclair argued that only he, McDonald, and Martinez, "the masters", were the only peole qualified to interprete the historical manuals? Do you think some new master is going to want to debate the subject over which they claim to be a master?
I do not speak for ARMA but I do think it is safe for me to say the following. Regardless of what other organizations and individuals choose to do ARMA will not be lowering its standards just because others do not wish to hold themselves to higher standards. ARMA will not be following false masters.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | I do not speak for ARMA but I do think it is safe for me to say the following. Regardless of what other organizations and individuals choose to do ARMA will not be lowering its standards just because others do not wish to hold themselves to higher standards. ARMA will not be following false masters.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW |
Randall,
No one is asking that standards be changed or the people be followed who aren't currently being followed by your group, are they? Please drop the pretension and condescension and do it now. It doesn't gain you or your organization any more respect. It just reflects poorly on both and further drives wedges between groups with common goals and interests.
This kind of crap irritates me to no end. It's absolutely ridiculous. Calling someone else a "false master" is similarly ridiculous. I think people know what our standards are here (since we are crystal clear about them), yet they choose not to follow them.
Everyone needs to cut out the bickering and sniping immediately. If you intend to keep up that nonsense, go to your own forums and do it. Don't do it here. Not coincidentally, there is a 19+ page thread on this very topic on one of the martial arts forums, so there is a venue in place already to duke it out. Fights in other neighborhoods don't need to spill over here.
Please keep discussing the relevance and merits of the modern application of terms and titles, but do it without dragging out old vendettas and without putting other people down (as in calling the "false masters" and similar things). You don't have to recognize someone else as a master, but don't condemn them if others choose to. You are always free to disagree with people, but keep it civil.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
The problem Jean, lies in the word 'immense'. That suggests a veritable bloodbath going on, and there's no substantial evidence for that age being much more violent than our own. |
Well at least we can clearly see now where we disagree.
The 20th century was certainly violent but that was violence between organized states. Which means in many cases individual citizens are less likely to engage in combat, especially hand-to-hand combat, although many suffered for example from bombing or were put into concentration camps. Within the borders of modern European states there is a level of government control and law and order which was unimaginable in Medieval Europe.
A place like 15th century Italy or the Holy Roman Empire was a mares nest of militarily aggressive fortified towns, ambitious barons and archbishops (and Popes), nests of bandits and religious fanatics, robber knights, pirates, and roaming bands of mercenaries. And people just trying to live normal lives, but it was all mixed up together. Which is why for the individual person, whether peacefuly, militarily, or criminally inclined, life was simply more violent and generally more dangerous then than now.
We still do have crime in our cities, and even intermediate types of chaos of the Medieval variety today of course, but not so much in Europe or the United States, or Australia or New Zealand. The violence which is ongoing today is in the Third World. If you wanted to compare say, modern day Colombia to Renaissance Europe, I think you would have a point. But I'm not aware of any HEMA "maestros" down there yet.
And there hasn't been a major war in Europe for the last 60 years, with the possiblye exception of the Yugoslavian civil war.
Can you show me an equally long period in Europe before 1600 which has been as peaceful ?
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
Last edited by Jean Henri Chandler on Thu 26 Jul, 2007 12:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
Sooner or later, assuming this community continues to thrive, there will be standards for those teaching. We may or may not call those at the top of the art 'masters', but that will be just a matter of semantics. |
This is actually a good point, some kind of recognition, formal or otherwise, should exist, will exist for those who such as yourself have made the effort to learn more than the average about this art as you say.
I have the utmost respect for the many individuals who have dedicated themselves to serious study of HEMA and know far more than I, and I do agknowlege their efforts. i would personally advocate as little formality as possible, and I think the problem some people have with the title of Master is that it has a sense that they have finished their study, that they have reached some sort of pinnacle of learning in this field. I don't think anyone has done that yet (or even come close), and more importantly I think a big part of the appeal of HEMA is that it is an ongoing process of discovery, and I think will be for some time yet. When someone calls themselves a Master it seems to imply that they have made it to the end of that road, and that irks some people who appreciate the collaborative aspect of learning this.
| Quote: | | A master of Japanese swordsmanship is still a master, despite the fact that no one fights with katanas any more. There's no inherent reason why that could not be so in our arts as well. |
I think again, this is part of the problem. Many people involved with HEMA moved to it from EMA precisely because they were turned off by the mysticism, authoritarian and kind of factional nature of EMA. We certainly have a lot of divisions in the HEMA community but there also seems to be a greater spirit of collaboration and of mutual respect, at least among some groups and individuals. There is a pragmatic reason for this. The translation and interpretation of the myriad of fechtbuchs out there is by no means a simple task, I think it's not coincidental that HEMA has revived in the age of the internet, because it has been the rapid lateral communication of ideas which has given us the distributed brain power to start to crack this puzzle.
It's true that it can be a bit unrealistic to have such an egalitarian yearning for HEMA, but it's equally unrealistic for some people (and I do not put you in this category) to seek to artificially elevate themselves into some cadre of elite. The big dividing line i have seen so far has been between people who take this seriously and people who don't. I do respect the work many people have done, I've certainly never published a book nor translated any fechtbuch from a Medieval dialect. I honor those who have. But i don't see any masters out there, and I'm not likely to start referring to anybody by such a title any time soon.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
Last edited by Jean Henri Chandler on Thu 26 Jul, 2007 12:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | So essentially, by calling yourself a 'director' or 'head instructor' and arrogating the right to make scholars, etc., all you're really doing is acting in the capacity of 'master' (and asserting all the rights appertaining thereto) without declaring as such. Which, I think, in the end just means you've simply decided not to bother with the potential political heat that title might bring. |
Good point.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joe Fults wrote: | | Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Do you think the books, the interpretations of today are going to hold up in say, ten years? J |
If nobody publishes countering opinions, I suspect they will.
If not by quality, then by sheer volume, and by lack of easily accessible conflicting material. |
Most of the interpretation books which came out 3 or 4 years ago, even the good ones, are now basically considered obsolete by most people I know, including in some cases by their own authors. I'd also say from my experience only about maybe one in five of the interpretations I've seen were any good.
But there are a couple which are quite useful even when I don't agree with everything in there, I'm glad they exist and I'm glad people are still writing them. I just think the understanding of HEMA is still evolving so rapidly that they don't hold up very well over time.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | It's true that it can be a bit unrealistic to have such an egalitarian yearning for HEMA, but it's equally unrealistic for some people (and I do not put you in this category) to seek to artificially elevate themselves into some cadre of elite. The big dividing line i have seen so far has been between people who take this seriously and people who don't. I do respect the work many people have done, I've certainly never published a book nor translated any fechtbuch from a Medieval dialect. I honor those who have. But i don't see any masters out there, and I'm not likely to start referring to anybody by such a title any time soon. |
Hi Jean,
I think you've hit the problem squarely on the head, there. In spite of all the clear arguments showing that the title "master" wasn't a particularly "elite" thing in the middle ages, people still see it that way (or pretend to so they can beat their breasts and blather on about how modest they are) and this still colors their emotional response to this issue.
To me, having someone avoid using the correct medieval title because of some kind of feelings of inadequacy or false modesty (this is the most common real issue, I think, contrary to what people say) or a kind of reverse snobbishness is far more unpleasant a prospect than having someone seek to aggrandize himself with a pompous-sounding title... But then, in my experience, egalitarianism is misplaced, too, since no one is ever equal, one person is always better than another.
You know, I'm a falconer, and we have titles, too. First you go through a carefully-controlled two-year apprenticeship, then you spend five years as a General Falconer. If that goes well, and you've actually flown raptors for that period without any major problems, you automatically become a Master Falconer. Yup. You're a Master. That means you can make hordes of hawks of different types hover silently over your head while simultaneously calling all the game in the vicinity out to be slaughtered with your Yoda-like powers, right? Nope. Many Masters have never even flown more than one kind of raptor. But we don't have any trouble differentiating between the title "Master" and a man who has "mastered" our art. Most people freely admit they aren't perfect paragons of the art of falconry, but no one eschews the title "Master" because they're not worthy. We know what it means and we don't much care how it looks to outsiders.
To me, and this is how I will continue using the term, a master is someone ready to go off on his own (which doesn't mean eschewing practice or the exchange of information with others) to practice and teach. In other words, it's a low-level rank indicating someone who has been through the basic learning process and is ready to stand on his own. A beginner, really, just as getting a black belt marks you as a beginner in any reputable martial arts dojo (something the ignorant public will *never* understand). And I'll get great satisfaction from knowing I'm using the term as it was used in period, just as, hopefully, I'm using a pollaxe as it was used in period.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
 |
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Then he brought him to a mercers shop, and said to the mercer: "Let me see your best silken points." The mercer then did presently show him some of seven groats a dozen. Then he paid fourteen groats for two dozen, and said to the master of defence: "There is one dozen for you, and one dozen for me." |
[/quote]
Those were delightful anecdotes mr Curtis, but I didn't understand the end of this first one... .what did he do? What are silken points? I don't get it. I thought they were going to fight....
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
To me, and this is how I will continue using the term, a master is someone ready to go off on his own (which doesn't mean eschewing practice or the exchange of information with others) to practice and teach. In other words, it's a low-level rank indicating someone who has been through the basic learning process and is ready to stand on his own. A beginner, really, just as getting a black belt marks you as a beginner in any reputable martial arts dojo (something the ignorant public will *never* understand). And I'll get great satisfaction from knowing I'm using the term as it was used in period, just as, hopefully, I'm using a pollaxe as it was used in period. |
Wouldn't that more accurately be a journeyman then?
Maybe I am in fact mistaken as to what the title 'master' meant in the medieval period. Actually I suspect though that there was considerable variation as to what it in fact meant. Mastering cabinet making, difficult as that is (certainly beyond my talents) is not of the same order of magnitude as being the Master of Navigation. I suspect a master of fencing may fall somewhere between the two.
Wouldn't you agree though that some in the community who do use the title of Master or Maestro do not really openly communicate with other fellow students of 'the Art' (particularly those who have not say, published any books or founded any schools of their own) and do in fact segregate themselves into kind of an elite cadre? I'm not talking about anyone currently posting to this thread mind you.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | "the masters", were the only peole qualified to interprete the historical manuals? |
This is true, I have read an article by at least one self styled Maestro in which he made precisely this claim. I think it's understandable why HEMA scholars, whether amateur hobbyists or committed professionals who do not claim a title or 'lineage' would find this extremely irritating.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Wouldn't that more accurately be a journeyman then? |
No, because a journeyman didn't have to produce a masterwork to be judged for his efforts; he still wasn't as free within his guild.
And before you point out that we have no masters to judge our journeymen who wish to become masters, remember that at some point medieval men faced the same problem; they had to self-promote until a working structure could be built. We have to do the same.
| Quote: | | Maybe I am in fact mistaken as to what the title 'master' meant in the medieval period. Actually I suspect though that there was considerable variation as to what it in fact meant. Mastering cabinet making, difficult as that is (certainly beyond my talents) is not of the same order of magnitude as being the Master of Navigation. I suspect a master of fencing may fall somewhere between the two. |
Based on what? I can tell you that in Elizabethan England "Masters of Defense" were considered pretty damned low on the social pecking scale (read Wagner's Master of Defense for more on this), so I'd imagine they were well below master cabinetmakers in society's estimation. Still, I'm sure you're right that the "master" of one school was well below the "master" of another in skill--but so what? That's the way the world works. Again, it's only when the word "master" comes to have meaning beyond its true value that we care. It's just not that important of a title--and that's the real point.
| Quote: | | Wouldn't you agree though that some in the community who do use the title of Master or Maestro do not really openly communicate with other fellow students of 'the Art' (particularly those who have not say, published any books or founded any schools of their own) and do in fact segregate themselves into kind of an elite cadre? I'm not talking about anyone currently posting to this thread mind you. |
I don't know if that's true or not, although I suspect it may be. But so what? How is that different from the middle ages? And how in the world did "elite" *ever* come to have a negative connotation? And what requirement do these masters have to communicate with others? It's to be hoped they will because we need all the input we can get, but I see no requirement for them to do so.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | If the title only has value within an organizaiton then why do people want the title? Because they do see it as having value beyound their own organizaiton! Consider the men you referred to earlier Ramon Martinez and Paul McDonald, along with Paul's teacher, Andrea Lupo Sinclair: Do either of these men say that they are only a master within their organization? Of course not. Why do you think that someone else will limit themself to only their orgainzation? Have we not already seen the behavior assoicated with the title in the context of the efforts to reconstruct of these lost arts? Do you not remember the thread on SFI in which Andrea Lupo Sinclair argued that only he, McDonald, and Martinez, "the masters", were the only peole qualified to interprete the historical manuals? Do you think some new master is going to want to debate the subject over which they claim to be a master? |
Randall,
I'm not going to respond to most of your post, for reasons that Chad has already spoken to.
However, I do want to clear up something: I was not advocating in favor of Messers. Martinez, McDonald, or Lupo-Sinclair. I don't feel any of them, save for Paul McDonald, have done that much work with the medieval treatises, so their holding a Master-at-Arms title in the Classical fencing arts doesn't necessarily cross over, without direct research and interpretation, just as being a modern sharpshooter doesn't make someone a medieval handgonne expert.
That said the training in formalized pedagogy entailed in becoming so certified *can* make a difference in one's ability to communicate principles to students. It's all about training the trainer.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
 |
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We study the historical masters or what is left of them in the records because it's safe to assume that skill at swordsmanship was a needed practical skill and their experience is superior to anything we can recreate.
People interested in history would want to recreate the original art as closely as possible to be true to the original and not only to discover what works or doesn't i.e. why techniques not based on the originals are looked at with scepticism in the sense that we find it hard to imagine that with our limited experience we could come up with anything better than the historical masters.
If we could catalogue all the physically possible options in the way swords can meet or the foe can be hit we would rediscover all the period techniques as well as some new ones that might work and a huge number of things that don't work !
Sort of the sum of all the geometric possibilities for lack of a better word or concept.
Now with the game of checkers they actually managed this, see the last entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkers
All the preamble above to make this point ( right or wrong ): If all knowledge of swordsmanship was completely forgotten and there was again a need for fighting with swords, we humans with the same body structure would eventually rediscover what works if given enough time. What works, works in the past, now or in the future. The details of style might vary greatly but all the basics would be very similar.
Studying and trying to recreate the period styles is a good way to not have to re-invent the wheel from scratch, but if we did reinvent from scratch we would " eventually " end up with real masters in the sense of maximum excellence.
Sorry, if this is more in the " way out there abstract " or bad or boring philosophizing.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Jean,
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
The 20th century was certainly violent but that was violence between organized states. Which means in many cases individual citizens are less likely to engage in combat, especially hand-to-hand combat, although many suffered for example from bombing or were put into concentration camps. Within the borders of modern European states there is a level of government control and law and order which was unimaginable in Medieval Europe. |
20th century wars featured civilian casualties on a scale, and in a proportion to military ones, that would boggle the minds of any medieval military man. Out of world population of 2.3 billion c. 1940, modern tallies now estimate the deaths in the 2nd World War at ~72 million - that's 3% of the planet's population! Civilian casualties here are of a completely different magnitude than those of the medieval world.
No century even remotely compares with the violence caused to civilians by these wars between states. Put together both world wars, the 1st and 2nd Congo Wars, and the Balkan conflicts, and you're over the 100 million mark.
Yes, central Africa isn't producing fencing masters (why? because they're fighting those wars with our modern weapons). But that brings us to another point. There's little evidence that the fencing master's primary role was training troops. Rather, he seemed to focus on training people (mostly nobles) for duels. So the correlation between masters and actual life expectancy threatening everyday violence is tenuous.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hi Jean,
20th century wars featured civilian casualties on a scale, and in a proportion to military ones, that would boggle the minds of any medieval military man. Out of world population of 2.3 billion c. 1940, modern tallies now estimate the deaths in the 2nd World War at ~72 million - that's 3% of the planet's population! Civilian casualties here are of a completely different magnitude than those of the medieval world. |
Of course, but very few were killed fighting hand to hand. The 20th century had more institutional murder, but the Medieval period had considerably more chaos. The context of this discussion was about how much exposure civilians had to hand to hand combat then versus now. Yes millions of civilians were killed during WW II, but there is little to no impact on martial arts skills from being carpet bombed. Or from being rounded up and shot.
In the Medieval period there were rather immensely more raids, small battles, sieges, piracy, etc. etc. We have street crime, we have huge apocalyptic wars, so did they. But we don't have a lot of the above, per my earlier posts, Baltimore hasn't invaded Pittsburgh recently, pirates have not sacked towns along the Gulf Coast any time i can remember.
And again, i challenge you, show me a period in European history before the 16th century when there was no major war for 60 years.
| Quote: |
Yes, central Africa isn't producing fencing masters (why? because they're fighting those wars with our modern weapons). |
My point about Columbia is that it's a zone where Central government control is tenuous in much of the area. Multiple agencies, communist guerillas, narco-trafficers, American military forces, indiginous groups, right wing death squads, international fruit cartels, emerald miners, etc. etc. etc. all vie for control of different areas in this region. Zones of power and influence shift suddenly, paritsans of a given faction can find themselves instantly in enemy territory, and under immediate threat of kidnapping ,robbery and murder. In this sense it's very like Renaissance Italy.
Of course wholesale massacre of towns or the sacking and pillaging of entire regions is extremely rare even in Columbia, which makes it quite different from most regions of Medieval Europe.
| Quote: | | But that brings us to another point. There's little evidence that the fencing master's primary role was training troops. Rather, he seemed to focus on training people (mostly nobles) for duels. So the correlation between masters and actual life expectancy threatening everyday violence is tenuous. |
Well here we definatley, completely disagree. I've said my piece, and you have said yours. I guess we could try to do a statistical analysis of violence in period, what kind there was and how it was implemented, and more specifically of students of the fechtchules, but that would be a project worthy of a Doctoral thesis. Personally, from the anecdotes I have read of the violence in the lives of students of the Fechtschules, of the Fencing brotherhoods like the Marx brothers etc., I find it very difficult to imagine it being as peaceful as you seem to surmise, but I'm obviously not going to convince you, so i expect we have to agree to disagree.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Cartier
Location: Florida Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It depends on the master if he is more battlefield oriented or duelling oriented.
Meyer was clearly respected by the men who paid to have armies as a teacher of men for armies so i trust that. The point is noon alive today is qualified to apply the title master to anyone else. And if we simply group up and swap master titles we make a mockery of this whole endeavor we call HEMA.
|
|
  |
|
|
Michael Eging
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hi Jean,
[Yes, central Africa isn't producing fencing masters (why? because they're fighting those wars with our modern weapons). But that brings us to another point. There's little evidence that the fencing master's primary role was training troops. Rather, he seemed to focus on training people (mostly nobles) for duels. So the correlation between masters and actual life expectancy threatening everyday violence is tenuous.
|
Honestly, I don't agree with you because the reverse is also true of this argument. While we do learn a lot about bouts, teaching "gentlemen" I grant you, there is also little to note that is the primary function either. Look, German, Italian and French masters practiced their craft in dangerous places. Fiore himself was combat tested and, I note, sought after to teach men the skills to avoid death.
From the Morgan manuscript:
http://fiore.the-exiles.org/G-introduction.html
1] Fior Furlan de Civida of Austria that is of Sir Benedetto of the noble family of liberi from Premariacco of the diocese of the Patriarch of Aquilegia, in his youth he wanted to learn of armed fighting and the art of combat in the barriers.
[2] Of spear, axe, sword and dagger and of unarmed on foot and on horse in armour and without armour.
[3] Also he wanted to understand the temper of iron.
[4] And features of each weapon as well as to defend when to attack and most of all of the fight to the death.
[12] That the said Fiore was more and more times required by many Gentleman and Knights and Squires for learning from the said Fiore made art of all arms and armour and fighting in the barriers to the death which art he has demonstrated to more Italian and German and other great Gentleman who had to fight in the barriers.
Note the location, a very dangerous place during Fiore's lifetime - a region that was burned over by conflict by the HRE, the French, and the Italian city states. Also, note that the fighting was unto the death (conflict/combat).
Now, Fiore learned, self admitedly, from others. Note again the regions, there were likely many of them that had some form of combat or conflict experience, based on the regions noted. I grant you, we must say possibly not all of them did. But I lean toward men who did, or had circles that included those who did have some sort of knowledge first hand.
[8] And the said Fiore learned these things from many German Masters.
[9] And from many Italians in more provinces and in many of the largest cities and with great expenses.
[10] And for the grace of God from many Masters and Scholars.
Now, he didn't tell us which of them had martial, combat or other conflict experience so one cannot just assume they did not, particularly given the region Fiore was documented to have travelled in.
From the introduction of the Fiore dei Liberi Pisani Dossi MS Translation, we also read "however, already having declining desire for this exercise and so that much experience of military service did not become lost negligently, so that it supplies in war or any other commotion, a most valid subsidy to the expert men, I have decided to compose a book with regard to things most useful in this splendid art...." He expected these skills to be used in conflict and war.
The expectation of use against everyday violence? Maybe, maybe not. I think you are stuck in absolutes. But the use in conflict certainly, whether is was tomorrow, next week, or the next campaign season.
However, let's look at a couple of others:
Angelo Viggiani dal Montone once boasted that he could teach a student enough to survive a duel in a half hour session.
Filippo Vadi who wrote De Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi dedicated the book to the Duke Guidobaldo da Montefeltro, who may have been an important patron for the master. The Duke was a warrior in Northern Italy and fought Charles of France in the service of Venetians. He fought in the service of the Pope, multiple popes/multiple times. Thus within Vadi's circles.
My point is that there was an expectation of use in conflict among circles of masters. And this may have also been an assumption with many who did not record their thoughts either. Everyday? No. Enough to be necessary to survive when the occasion occured? As preparation for dueling, war, the dangers of life? Yes. As for battle, I think that was Fiore's expectation. Note, that is what I think.
As to Fiore's view of mastery, there is a lovely little quote from someone who the more I read him, the more I am impressed by his insights. When commenting on ill-prepared "masters" of his time (those without books - thank goodness we have at least those), Fiore noted:
"... Even as one wants to be a good Master, that I the aforementioned Fiore have seen thousands call themselves Master that they are not of all four good Scholars and of those four good Scholars not one would be a good Master."
We can plunge into the volume of death in the 20th century, but as we disussed before it is a red herring. Swordsmanship, use of edged weapons, etc. were part and parcel with another violent age. The martial art is infused with this. Practice teaches us technique, muscle memory, distance, etc., etc., etc. But it does not teach us decisionmaking under duress, the importance of a void when an edge can do permanent damage, martial instincts, etc. that kept the skills relevant as I think was Fiore's goal in writing down his knowledge.
Anyway, we can agree to disagree, but this is my view and I believe these skills had real application in the period of time (although even the application changed over time as warfare changed).
All the best,
Mike
Will never be a master... golfer.
M. Eging
Hamilton, VA
www.silverhornechoes.com
Member of the HEMA Alliance
http://hemaalliance.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic