| Author |
Message |
|
David Welch
|
 Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Which one of the Masters wrote something along the lines of
| Quote: | | "I have seen hundreds that called themselves master, and they wouldn't have made one master between them, and maybe four were good students." |
That seems strangely relevant...
"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4BC-65AD
|
|
   |
 |
Brian Hook
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Eging wrote: | | I want to touch on the history a bit because of the assumptions being made about the period. Clearly, there were laws intended to keep people safe. But interpretation, enforcement, and safety were not the same as today. And a "bravo" passing through was not going to be hunted down in the same way, DNA matched, charged, etc. |
Actually people aren’t making assumptions, people are basing it on historical documents that say the contrary, but you are right about enforcement being different then today, there was no DNA matching or any other sort of forensic science, which lead to people being charged based on accusation, and being punished based solely on word of mouth. I think many Americans like to compare medieval Europe to the Wild West which isn't the case at all, remember European society is much older and would have collapsed if such lawlessness was allowed.
| Michael Eging wrote: | | But marital schools, as many likely were, probably included many with combat experience or those who expected combat experience of some sort. Did some of these skills find their way to back alley fights? You bet. Cities at the time were not safe places and offenses did happen in Europe during this period that ended with weapons of some sort. While not on every street corner, urban life at the time was not an entirely safe environment. Countrysides post-battles had idle armies, men-for-hire moving to new pay masters (as documented in Italy and Germany), etc. |
You mean just like today where street crime, fights and all other sorts of violence happen every day across the states and the world, people like to think we are so far removed from our ancestors when in reality the more things change the more things stay the same, violence is part of human nature from the dawn of time and will be with us till the end of our existence.
| Michael Eging wrote: | | The issue is that master does not mean teacher to everyone, as illustrated in an earlier post of the potential student looking for a "master." Maybe it is all in the branding and the transparency used. |
I'm not saying the word master should mean teacher, it should mean "Master teacher" a person whom understands the system and can pass it on with great skill, I fully believe this is achievable in the future, and most likely even happening today with a few individuals
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian Hook wrote: | | People seem to romanticize about the idea that in medieval Europe, that there was a swordfight around every corner, this just isn’t the case. |
Actually my friend there's considerable evidence that Matt Galas has uncovered regarding just how day to day knightly feuding were in 14th and 15th c. Germany. He just posted a great thing on that over at SFI. Perhaps I can borrow the post from here to enter here.
He's done lots of digging into judicial dueling and the internecine warfare common in the Empire. There are, apparently, a number of documented cases where nobles had to fend off multiple attackers, without their armour, yielding further clues about why the unarmoured sword techniques were important.
So, no, it wasn't the imaginary wild west, but there was plenty of strife.
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
|
|
 |
|
Brian Hook
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | | No one has claimed that historical masters have scores of lethal encounters under their belt. No one. Such a claim is nothing more than a straw man argument designed to ridicule another poster while deliberately distorting their positions. |
| Jeffrey Hull wrote: | Anybody in modern times who pursues the swordsmanship of Kunst des Fechtens and claims the title of Meister or Fechtmeister is a phony, a liar, a fraud.
Such a person would most likely lose a fight to Liechtenauer, Ringeck, Talhoffer, Kal, Von Danzig.
Those true Fechtmeister of olden times did not train or teach knights and nobles merely for bouting, or to further courtesy as the hallmark of a great swordsman, or for self-discovery, or to promote academy as the highest level of fencing, or whatever -- those Fechtmeister taught men how to kill their foes in earnest fight of dueling and war. |
Maybe I'm missing interpreting but that’s what that sounds like to me, that no modern student of the arts could hold a candle to these men whose fighting prowess we really know nothing about.
| Craig Peters wrote: |
I also doubt that anyone is under any illusions that many knights were "lucky" to see more than a few battles in their lifetime. |
You'd be surprised how much lucky really did have to do with things, back then and today. Skill can only take a person so far, even then it only increases one chance of survival. In a rhetorical duel if someone could kill a guy 9 times out of 10 if that one time he didn't do it was the real fight he's dead regardless of skill, this is why the masters take want the students to take note of "buffalo" fencers because their untrained fighting style could be more dangerous to someone so use to the system.
The fact of the matter remains that the late medieval and renaissance masters were recognized authorities on martial arts. They possessed knowledge and skill in their art that significantly exceeded other individuals in their art.
No one is denying that fact, what is being debated is that a modern man could obtain the same knowledge and the same skill which no one has provided any evidence that he couldn't. I don't see why this would be the case just because the situation where these skills could be used can not arise, which doesn't make any sense. As in other combat arts like knife fighting for example there are people whom are extremely skill with the knife and it's usage in combat who has never had to use the knife in ernst, people who I would consider masters of modern knife fighting. Are you trying to say because the situation will never arise where one would need to use a sword he can not be skill more the say a provosts level of skill?
| Craig Peters wrote: | Nor can it be denied that Hans Talhoffer proved his skill in ernst fechten when he served as personal trainer to Leutold von Koenigsegg for Leutold's judicial duel. Talhoffer may not have had to use his skills himself, but he certainly had to teach someone techniques that could be used in a life and death encounter.
|
No one is denying it, in fact I put in my post to support my argument, Talhoffer can train someone for deadly combat without necessarily having the real combat experience himself. Just like people can train to use their skill for lethal combat, or train others with for lethal combat without ever having to be in lethal combat. I can see what you are saying that never having any real opportunity to use the skills in ernst can and has lead to some lazy or arm chair martial artists, but that isn't the case with everyone, I personally train to fight to kill and try to keep that mindset, when I bout it is merely a tool to test and refine my killing skills, not to show off or ego competition buy taking lots of cheap shot taps just to win, nor will I bout with people who do so. Too openly say that no one can ever be a Master or that we all "suck", is putting a very limited cap on your own abilities. Martial arts is all about breaking mental and physical barriers and if you put a limit on yourself from the get go you will never surpass yourself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Eging
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to agree with Christian. The documents and records are rife with strife (warfare, conflict, etc.) Various levels of violence, and many needed martially training for preparation. I was piling through book after book after book with lots of original references to documents. I could list them, but long list, from Austrian history, through the Holy Roman Empire and conflict in Northern Italy. It is all there. Brutal - at times simmering. And many times flaring up into broader martial conflict.
And yes, we do not have context for the violence. I can't agree with you on that. Enforcement, intent, punishment - all different. As were the means of defense, etc.  Or offense.
M. Eging
Hamilton, VA
www.silverhornechoes.com
Member of the HEMA Alliance
http://hemaalliance.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Hook
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | Brian Hook wrote: | | People seem to romanticize about the idea that in medieval Europe, that there was a swordfight around every corner, this just isn’t the case. |
Actually my friend there's considerable evidence that Matt Galas has uncovered regarding just how day to day knightly feuding were in 14th and 15th c. Germany. He just posted a great thing on that over at SFI. Perhaps I can borrow the post from here to enter here.
|
Hey Christian, I'm not trying downplay the strife of the periods in question, conflict was part of daily life more then it is our modern times (well in some modern places that is) it just seems to me the ratio that some people think went on are quite off, I could imagine a need for security in means of martial arts and the need for guards who where educated the same, but violence and thuggery still exist today one only has to look at the news, would like to see the post however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | | "Schulfechten" was a mistake on my part as far as characterizing modern study. However, at least historically, ernst fechten was put into use and tested. It's pretty hard for us to really say that we're practicing ernst fechten when we've never had to deal with the ernst part for real. |
Oh come now, Craig. I studied traditional Japanese swordsmanship for many years. None of us had ever fought a lethal bout with swords, and yet our art was unequivocally "Ernstfechten" in the sense medieval men meant the term: We practiced an art designed for killing, not for sport. So we were, clearly, studying the Japanese equivilent of Ernstfechten in spite of not having ever killed anyone. In the same way, anyone studying Ringeck or von Danzig can clearly say he's practicing Ernstfechten regardless of whether he actually fights a real duel or not.
Go back to the books: The difference between Ernstfechten and Schulfechten wasn't about whether you actually fought a duel to the death, it was about the nature of the techniques practiced.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
 |
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: |
I also doubt that anyone is under any illusions that many knights were "lucky" to see more than a few battles in their lifetime. |
I've read that some knights and/or nobles did not see more than one or two battles in their lifetime and that those who did experience more were the exception to the rule. I think, of course, that this notion largely depends on what era and location you're talking about. During the feudal system's heyday, members of the knightly class were the battlefield warriors and were required to give service. As indentured and professional armies rose in prominence that may have waned, since professional soldiers would have taken up the slack.
So in some eras, it's entirely possible for knights to not have taken place in many major pitched battles. In some eras, it's probably unlikely.
Talking in absolutes can be dangerous. 
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay folks,
Some people are getting heated with their responses. This hobby is simply not worth getting this worked up over.
Please keep it calm, civil, and professional.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's important to view the incidents of violence in the middle ages with the correct sense of scale.
For instance, how many of you have been in a gun fight?
If, 500 years from now, students of history study the 20th century (The 21st is too young to be a good example), then they would find that it is one of the most violent centuries in human history. Even in 2007, thousands of people are killed every week(day? hour?) in acts of brutal violence accross the world. In America, thousands are murdered every year.
Yet I would speculate that very few among us have been in a life or death battle, or have even witnessed one.
Back to the future analogy, some may even argue that to be true masters of the antiquated gun in 2507 is impossible without having lived through the violent and turbulent days of the 20th or 21st century when guns were used every day by brave men and women to save lives and defeat evil (ahem).
Would they be right? I don't think so. Most of our firearms masters have never shot anyone either.
Just something to keep in mind.
On the flip side, some among us, depending on what we do, are a lot more likely to encounter violence than others. The same was probably true in the middle ages. Here at NYHFA, one of our members is a New York City police officer, and he has participated in and/or witnesses many acts of violence.
But I still shoot better than he does.
Now I'm off to read that post by Matt Galas...
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Hook
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Eging wrote: | | I have to agree with Christian. The documents and records are rife with strife (warfare, conflict, etc.) Various levels of violence, and many needed martially training for preparation. I was piling through book after book after book with lots of original references to documents. I could list them, but long list, |
Please do I'm insteaded in any books on the period in question I can find
| Michael Eging wrote: | | And yes, we do not have context for the violence. I can't agree with you on that. Enforcement, intent, punishment - all different. |
Different but not dissimilar, there is plenty of unpunished strife from shootings, to muggings, to burglary, and cold blooded murder that slips past the law every day, doesn't by any means mean we living in some from of anarchic society and neither did they.
Last edited by Brian Hook on Tue 24 Jul, 2007 6:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | If the title "master" is just a word then why do so many want the title?
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW |
Is the question rhetorical?
Sidestepping merit for a moment, it seems obvious in this part of the peanut gallery that there is some level of demand for modern "masters". If we can accept that this is the case, then surely there is or might someday be, money to be made by those who will take the title and proclaim it. Moreover, this seems true today, and it seems like it may have been true in the past. That some people recognize this and act to meet demand is not a surprise. At least not in this part of the peanut gallery.
Merit in this case, is a subject that I can't presume to speak to.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
Last edited by Joe Fults on Tue 24 Jul, 2007 7:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Eging
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian Hook wrote: | | Michael Eging wrote: | | I have to agree with Christian. The documents and records are rife with strife (warfare, conflict, etc.) Various levels of violence, and many needed martially training for preparation. I was piling through book after book after book with lots of original references to documents. I could list them, but long list, |
Please do I'm insteaded in any books on the period in question I can find
We could start in Northern Italy and run through the history of the papal wars through the late 1400s, then move north into Northern Italy and the sparring of the various states there. Then we could move to the early 1300's and the conflicts between the Holy Roman Empire and the Northern Italian states, as well as the tussle with the French over legitimacy (excommunication of emperors battles among German nobles, Italian nobles and French surrogates to keep power). As Chad qualified, some knights may not have seen warfare on a regular basis or even in their life, there were companies of men and regions that were burned over by war.
| Michael Eging wrote: | | And yes, we do not have context for the violence. I can't agree with you on that. Enforcement, intent, punishment - all different. |
Different but not dissimilar, there is plenty of unpunished strife from shootings, to muggings, to burglary, and cold blooded murder that slips past the law every day, doesn't by any means mean we living in some from of anarchic society and neither did they. |
We could start in Northern Italy and run through the history of the papal wars through the late 1400s, then move north into Northern Italy and the sparring of the various states there. Then we could move to the early 1300's and the conflicts between the Holy Roman Empire and the Northern Italian states, as well as the tussle with the French over legitimacy (excommunication of emperors battles among German nobles, Italian nobles and French surrogates to keep power). As Chad qualified, some knights may not have seen warfare on a regular basis or even in their life, there were companies of men and regions that were burned over by war.
They lived in a society that might not have not anarchic to them all the time. There were many instances when law was based on strength of the local lord (as in this time nation states were just emerging). Indifference of a local official, sufferance of an ecclesiatical authority for violence and other things, valuation of life, ability to pay (bride or steal). It was a very different society than the one we live in today with different values on many things. Including life. I am not saying that some of these things don't happen in our own society, but the level of violence, the use of violence and the ability to get away with violence from the top of society was in many ways different. When was the last time someone in the United States collected tithes from a community of a major portion of their produce? Or were able to impose religious beliefs when the Bishop or Lord changed, or had their troops "hosted" by your community at the edge of a weapon. In some regions of Europe local authority trumped the law on the books of the empire or kingdom or whatever was interpreted by someone who didn't care about the central authority.
Have you seen many medieval or renaissance books on peasants rights?
One of my favorite books, Machiavelli's The Prince, has wonderful little snippets of lordling ecclesiastics riding to battle against members of their ecclesiastical flock. It was a bit anarchic by our standards. But in their view of the world, maybe not. But I don't presume to speak for them. One of my favorite figures, Louis of Bavaria, Holy Roman Emperor (1328-1347) was embroiled in war with the French and the Northern Italian states most of his reign. And his reign was proceeded by years of inter-noble warfare within the empire itself to establish succession. This affected Germany for years - German thought, German government, etc. etc. etc.
When I get a chance, I'll cull through some of my favorites and send them along to you.
My point is, this Art is part and parcel of this age. It was shaped by warfare and by preparation for violence. And the laws, civil justice systems, renumeration, protections, etc. were very different. I just can't go along with you there. The law codes themselves had harsh punishments were based on a very different set of values. We are a product of them, but we are not them.
To bring a level of mastery to a document produced in these periods of time, we need to understand this context. And it varies based on region. We won't be able to recreate it, but it will help us challenge our interpretations. That is all the point I am trying to make.
M. Eging
Hamilton, VA
www.silverhornechoes.com
Member of the HEMA Alliance
http://hemaalliance.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Eging
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | I think it's important to view the incidents of violence in the middle ages with the correct sense of scale.
For instance, how many of you have been in a gun fight?
If, 500 years from now, students of history study the 20th century (The 21st is too young to be a good example), then they would find that it is one of the most violent centuries in human history. Even in 2007, thousands of people are killed every week(day? hour?) in acts of brutal violence accross the world. In America, thousands are murdered every year.
Yet I would speculate that very few among us have been in a life or death battle, or have even witnessed one.
Back to the future analogy, some may even argue that to be true masters of the antiquated gun in 2507 is impossible without having lived through the violent and turbulent days of the 20th or 21st century when guns were used every day by brave men and women to save lives and defeat evil (ahem).
Would they be right? I don't think so. Most of our firearms masters have never shot anyone either.
Just something to keep in mind.
On the flip side, some among us, depending on what we do, are a lot more likely to encounter violence than others. The same was probably true in the middle ages. Here at NYHFA, one of our members is a New York City police officer, and he has participated in and/or witnesses many acts of violence.
But I still shoot better than he does.
Now I'm off to read that post by Matt Galas... |
I am not quite with you on this gun analogy. Gently squeezing a trigger at a target (have done myself in the military) is far different than squeezing the trigger, controlling your breathing and taking a shot at a person who is intent on killing you. I have a close friend who is a DC police officer and going through what they do and still having the presence of mind to use the weapon is worlds away from target practice. I have a family member in the military and he is a combat experienced shot. Again, different experience and not comparable to your experience, as good as you might be. You could be a gold medal shot, still choke in battle and not take the shot. Does that make you a bad target shot? No. But it could make you a dead infantryman.
Look, we don't have the muscle memory of the medieval and renaissance masters. We have never had to use the weapons in combat. We don't have intensive video training tapes. We haven't had a back alley brawl with our hand and a half to apply the techniques. Use of a sword is far more complex that use of a rifle. That is why powder weapons won out! You could train lots of people who could vaguely point and shoot and the sheer volume colliding into the bodies of the enemy did the job. No years of training to use the weapon needed. Conscript or noble -- all became equal on the battlefield.
Yes, we have violence in our society. And we have had mass murderers, systemic genocide, and other horrific attrocities. But that does not bridge us to a martial system based on weapons that have not seen use in 400 years and documents that are snapshots of the systems which we have to recreate. The bridge just doesn't work for me. Scale is not the important thing here. It was use of the weapon. When it was used. And how it was used. My best efforts in my study group cannot be the same as a student of Fiore who has used his skills to survive and passed on his experience to another. And the age, depending on your circumstances, gave some people lots of opportunities to test the martial systems that we will never get.
M. Eging
Hamilton, VA
www.silverhornechoes.com
Member of the HEMA Alliance
http://hemaalliance.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben M. wrote: |
How can anyone, in our time, claim mastery over something when groups still have different interpretations of how something should be performed? I'm assuming it's fairly safe to say that most, if not every, group and individual involved in this is going to eventually change how they perform something. To claim mastery over a subject that isn't totally fleshed out just seems odd to me.
|
For context, in the Medieval period we are discussing there wasn't agreement on how thing should be performed. Agreement is not a valid precondition for the existence of mastery.
* * *
A few numbers for the scale of violence. At Agincourt the French fielded in the neighborhood of 40,000 soldiers, I believe all professionals. France's population at the time was around 14 million.
That's it. One fourth of one percent actually fought in the war that year. Out of a noble, male population five times that.
Almost all of the people who were trained and expected to fight by the terms of the feudal obligation didn't.
Most didn't fight in the war.
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Welch
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I found what I was thinking of.
Fiore Dei Liberi Pisani Dossi translation.
| Quote: | | that I the aforementioned Fiore have seen thousands that 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 |
"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4BC-65AD
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Eging wrote: |
I am not quite with you on this gun analogy. Gently squeezing a trigger at a target (have done myself in the military) is far different than squeezing the trigger, controlling your breathing and taking a shot at a person who is intent on killing you. I have a close friend who is a DC police officer and going through what they do and still having the presence of mind to use the weapon is worlds away from target practice. I have a family member in the military and he is a combat experienced shot. Again, different experience and not comparable to your experience, as good as you might be. You could be a gold medal shot, still choke in battle and not take the shot. Does that make you a bad target shot? No. But it could make you a dead infantryman.
Look, we don't have the muscle memory of the medieval and renaissance masters. We have never had to use the weapons in combat. We don't have intensive video training tapes. We haven't had a back alley brawl with our hand and a half to apply the techniques. Use of a sword is far more complex that use of a rifle. That is why powder weapons won out! You could train lots of people who could vaguely point and shoot and the sheer volume colliding into the bodies of the enemy did the job. No years of training to use the weapon needed. Conscript or noble -- all became equal on the battlefield.
Yes, we have violence in our society. And we have had mass murderers, systemic genocide, and other horrific attrocities. But that does not bridge us to a martial system based on weapons that have not seen use in 400 years and documents that are snapshots of the systems which we have to recreate. The bridge just doesn't work for me. Scale is not the important thing here. It was use of the weapon. When it was used. And how it was used. My best efforts in my study group cannot be the same as a student of Fiore who has used his skills to survive and passed on his experience to another. And the age, depending on your circumstances, gave some people lots of opportunities to test the martial systems that we will never get.
|
Michael,
My gun analogy had two aspects. I will respect you disagreement over the first one as you made some excellent points, but I'd like the other one not to be overshadowed.
The second point is that we have lived through the most violent century of human history ever recorded. So many tens or hundreds of millions killed in wars, nations ravaged, etc. Yet most of us have never seen murderous violence. It is easy to look at a period of history a century or decade at a time, a country at at a time, and be overwhlemed with the violence that we see. Yet if you look at the same picture one person at a time, one year at a time, you would be hard pressed to find any violence, and when you did, its incident rate would be few and far between.
So if we can find a ton of evidence of violence in the middle ages, it doesn't necesserily mean that the average knight, merchant or peasant ever saw any. Or, for that matter, the average fencing master.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Go back to the books: The difference between Ernstfechten and Schulfechten wasn't about whether you actually fought a duel to the death, it was about the nature of the techniques practiced. |
Yes, exactly Hugh. It's the intent of the techniques, not whether or not you've occassion to use them.
Today, police are trained for earnest combat responses against criminals, yet few will ever shoot someone in their careers.
Actual combat application does not define masters of Asian arts today; why it should for those of European ones escapes me. I think this is more about insecurity on the part of some interpreters of arts without living lineages. By saying that there can't be masters, it obscures the qualifications of those who are in lineage-backed traditions.
Really, if you run a martial arts school, you're its headmaster, whether you use that title or not. Calling yourself director, principal instructor, or whatever doesn't change the role you play or the expectations laid upon you. Those expectations must include, for our purposes, fidelity to the art as laid out in its documents (in my case, medieval manuscripts), consistency and care in the creation and implementation of the school's pedagogy, the ability to mentor, maintenance of safety, etc.
Call it what you like, but these things haven't changed that much over the centuries. A modern Iaido master doesn't teach an art that has relevance to battle today. Is he therefore not a master?
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
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Craig Peters wrote: | | "Schulfechten" was a mistake on my part as far as characterizing modern study. However, at least historically, ernst fechten was put into use and tested. It's pretty hard for us to really say that we're practicing ernst fechten when we've never had to deal with the ernst part for real. |
Oh come now, Craig. I studied traditional Japanese swordsmanship for many years. None of us had ever fought a lethal bout with swords, and yet our art was unequivocally "Ernstfechten" in the sense medieval men meant the term: We practiced an art designed for killing, not for sport. So we were, clearly, studying the Japanese equivilent of Ernstfechten in spite of not having ever killed anyone. In the same way, anyone studying Ringeck or von Danzig can clearly say he's practicing Ernstfechten regardless of whether he actually fights a real duel or not.
Go back to the books: The difference between Ernstfechten and Schulfechten wasn't about whether you actually fought a duel to the death, it was about the nature of the techniques practiced. |
I don't need to go back to the books Hugh. Frankly, until we've actually fought in earnest, we can only assume that the skills we are learning will work in earnest. I have no doubt that there are some individuals, particularly some of the senior ARMA members, who would fare quite well if they were forced to fight in earnest. But as for the rest of us, I'm not so sure. Considering too that we're reconstructing these arts, your post seems to imply the assumption that all reconstructions are equal (or at least most of them are equal) and I've seen very little evidence to support this, and lots of evidence that when people think they're practicing ernst fechten, what they've learned would fail them if they ever faced someone in serious adversarial sparring, let alone real fighting.
I re-emphasize: the fact that I claimed we were doing schulfechten was a mental error on my part, a consequence of not thinking out what I was saying. But just because one is practicing the techniques of ernst fechten does not mean you have reconstructed them such that you could use them successfully in ernst fechten. And that's no small point.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Craig,
I don't see how you can read that Hugh is suggesting all interpretations are equal. He hasn't said that, and I know from other communications that he most certainly does not think it.
The term ernstfechten refers to those techniques intended for earnest combat. That's all it means. Usually, this implies a judicial dueling context. A number of manuscripts use this term to differentiate such fighting from sportive exchanges, where many Kampstucke (dueling techniques) are disallowed on account of their danger.
Whether you are studying the techniques for one or the other has nothing whatever to do with whether or not you've engaged in lethal combat. Quite the contrary, for many trained in such methods would clearly not have had such an encounter, but merely been properly trained and prepared for one.
I must return to my modern police analogy: is the cop today who never shoots someone not training in earnest combat against criminals when he goes to the range? The answer is, of course he is. And if you train to thrust at the half-sword through someone's visor, so are you.
Finally, I must challenge you on your remark regarding not seeing evidence of people practicing effectively. Please name some names and places. I attend most of the pan-school events held in this country and I've neither seen nor heard of you before your appearance on this board, so, in all candor, I'm having trouble believing you've observed much of the community outside your own school/organization.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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