| Author |
Message |
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
 Posted: Tue 24 Jul, 2007 10:43 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, 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. |
Yes Michael, but don't over-read my remarks. I firmly maintain that most students of these arts in the late Middle Ages never killed someone in a duel.
While training and real combat are different beasts, there's absolutely zero evidence to indicate that any master thought you weren't practicing earnestly just because you never had the opportunity/misfortune to find yourself needing to use it.
It's also all but certain that some masters never killed anyone - they were evaluated through prize plays and such to determine their acceptability. There's not one scrap of evidence suggesting killing or injuring someone was used as the criteria. In fact, if you did, it'd better be justifiable, because they had a name for unwarranted lethal dueling: murder.
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
|
|
    |
 |
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | 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. |
Just so, Christian, and thank you. I certainly don't believe all interpretations are equal, nor are all people studying with equal fervor/intensity/dedication, etc. But none of that has anything to do with the material they're studying: it was either originally intended for lethal play of for sport.
And I think your police analogy is perfect; the same comparison could be made of the Samurai. I may be misremembering the source, but I think it was Adelle and Westbrook in their Secrets of the Samurai who made the point that most Samurai didn't ever have cause to use their swords in anything but practice. The same point was made about medieval knights in Peter Coss' book on English knighthood.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
 |
|
|
Michael Eging
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler 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, 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. |
Yes Michael, but don't over-read my remarks. I firmly maintain that most students of these arts in the late Middle Ages never killed someone in a duel.
While training and real combat are different beasts, there's absolutely zero evidence to indicate that any master thought you weren't practicing earnestly just because you never had the opportunity/misfortune to find yourself needing to use it.
It's also all but certain that some masters never killed anyone - they were evaluated through prize plays and such to determine their acceptability. There's not one scrap of evidence suggesting killing or injuring someone was used as the criteria. In fact, if you did, it'd better be justifiable, because they had a name for unwarranted lethal dueling: murder.
All the best,
Christian |
I did not try to over-read your remarks. But we do not have proof either that these were not tested vigorously and often either. I note your use of the term "some." When I was in the military many drill sergeants had not seen battle or fired a weapon in conflict. But the military shifted to combat veterans to bring this into training here and now. These schools and the masters themselves were the product of an age. The product of men testing these skills in many ways. We cannot test them all the way they did, thus we are not going to be able to fill in all the gaps.
I agree with you on your assertion "While training and real combat are different beasts, there's absolutely zero evidence to indicate that any master thought you weren't practicing earnestly just because you never had the opportunity/misfortune to find yourself needing to use it." But practice in a yard and use in combat/conflict are two different animals and skills are honed differently, reactions used differently - a gut check made that cannot be captured in the practice yard. difference between my peacetime military training and the realtime training and application of someone in combat today.
And unwarranted lethal dueling, unless caught, was also called many other things as well. And the law on the books was not necessarily the law that was applied.
I do not approach this discussion in absolutes. Lots of variables... and a book on English Knights, while likely insightful to that experience, does not necessarily apply to the German hedge knight in the train of the excommunicated Emperor or the Teutonic knight in Lithunania, or the Italian knight in the service of a city or the Pope in Northern Italy. Or the knight in Malta. All hotbeds for conflict, great and small. So, I would just be cautious about fitting the analogies into our Cinderella's slipper.
All the best,
Mike
M. Eging
Hamilton, VA
www.silverhornechoes.com
Member of the HEMA Alliance
http://hemaalliance.com/
Last edited by Michael Eging on Wed 25 Jul, 2007 6:45 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | 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. |
Christian
In general, we are not concern with what is or is not a master in the Asian arts. As Sean Flynt point out this can also be something of a stawman. Why should those of us who are engaged in the reconstruction of these lost Medieval and Renaissance martial arts as true combat martial arts even look to the the Asian arts for guildance on what is or is not a master? Given that there are no living traditions the the Medieval and Renaissance martial arts that too is a non-issue in this debate. Personally, I think the real insecurity is to be found will be among those who so badly want the "master" title.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | In general, we are not concern with what is or is not a master in the Asian arts. As Sean Flynt point out this can also be something of a stawman. Why should those of us who are engaged in the reconstruction of these lost Medieval and Renaissance martial arts as true combat martial arts even look to the the Asian arts for guildance on what is or is not a master? |
Why shouldn't people studying martial disciplines without a living linenage look for guidence, for some aspects of what they do, to very similar traditions with living lineages? Not necessarily for insights into the arts themselves, but perhaps for ideas on how we as a group should conduct ourselves in the present.
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: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think so Randall. This is an oft-repeated theme of your organization's website, and focus on this issue dates to John Clements' early strife in the late 1990's with those already holding that title, such as Ramon Martinez and Paul McDonald.
The fact is that people's expectations of what the word 'master' means are the result of the Asian martial arts phenomenon in this country and, worse, the action movies that movement influenced, including 'Star Wars'.
I'm not personally inclined to use the title myself, but if someone else heads up a school and refers to themselves as its master, that's just not going to send me on some tirade. I certainly have no issue with Terry Brown using it.
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: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Flynt wrote: | | Brian Hook wrote: | | First I would like to put my two cents in on the idea that every medieval fencing master whom in the modern mind is akin to some unstoppable killing machine, It just didn’t happen. |
Nobody here has made such a claim. I might add that nobody here has equated western martial arts with Asian martial arts. Those seem to be straw men, and straw men don't make for convincing arguments. |
| Brian Hook wrote: |
| 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.
|
As I said before to Craig Peters, this is what the quote above sounds like to me with a bit exaggeration added to make a point, in this thread and I've heard it other times spoke that those mentioned above must be great fighters, also I never mention anything about Asian martial arts. As for straw men a true straw man, is stating that we as modern men for some reason can never achieve the same skill level as our forbears just because the situation can't arise to use our skill.
Last edited by Brian Hook on Wed 25 Jul, 2007 11:47 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Most people who studied Ernstfechten in period *never* had a serious fight. Never. We're no different today. |
I remember a similar discussion of this on SFI one time before I was banned. Partly this is an issue of speaking about different periods of time. Fencing in the 17th century was different from fencing in the 16th and much different from fencing in the 14th, and of course there was also always considerable variation on customs and practices in duels and judicial combat from one region to another. In some places duels were frequently to the death, in others, only to the first blood with every effort to minimize the likelyhood of death or serious injury. Anyone who has looked at Tallhoffer has some idea of the bewildering variety of different types of judicial combat and various rules and weapon systems. Fighting with shields, however pointy, is a far cry from fighting with say, sharp messers.
But the fact is that the range of periods and places we are speaking of here in a HEMA context can be generally said to have been a much more violent time than today.
Even 16th century fencing among the fencing fraternities and schools was extremely bloody, like much later English prize fighitng. I remember doing research on the fechtschules, and for a student to have survived I think 12 prize fights (can't remember the exact number) without a serious injury was considered a steller achievement which was widely celebrated.
Some people have literally a huge investment in the idea that they have become a Maestro of HEMA, but the reality is, when the fechtbuchs were being written fencing was for real. Duels and judicial combats were a very real possibility. Street crime or robbery on the highways, depending on where you were, was much more of a threat. The chance of someone having to engage in violent struggle with hand weapons was quite high. Not everybody who fenced or even who taught fencing was a killer, but there were plenty of killers around who had seen and done the real thing. We don't have that reality check any more.
Just look at the lives of some of the famous writers we know of from this period... Cervantes was a galley slave at one point, for example. In much of 15th or 16th century Europe, war, raids, piracy, violent factional and religious disputes, invasions, sieges, plagues, famines, and the possibility of being captured, imprisoned in a public or private jail, exiled, tortured or killed were all quite high. Minor skirmishes and even Major wars were breaking out all over almost constantrly. It was not a mad max free-for-all of some folks imagination, but it was not the ordered civilized place that some Maestros would have us believe.
I think you can learn to fence with safety precautions, but with really nobody in the community having any real experiences of killing people with swords or seeing it done, we are limited in how far we can really take things, especially since we all have different ways we like to spar or bout (we can't even agree on a term) and we all prefer different types of equipment, and there there is insufficient communication and in fact, often acrimony and secrecy between various HEMA schools and individual "masters". I don't agree with Jeans analogy here, much as I always respect his comments and well thought out observations. I don't think it's like people who are learning to shoot, it's more like people learning to surf in a swimming pool without ever going into the sea, or learning to fly on a flight simulator without ever taking off in a real airplane. We can get some idea, but i don't think it's the same thing.
I also think we have a long, long, long way to go toward really understanding the fechtbuchs, we have only reached a moderate degree of understanding of just certain parts of a handful of them so far, IMO.
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 Wed 25 Jul, 2007 12:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think what people are looking for when somebody says 'Master' in the context of HEMA, is somebody on the level of a Tallhoffer or a Fiore or a Lichtenauer. I don't think we have Master of that quality in any European martial art from say, pre 1650.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Eging wrote: | | However, if we state that wars were not frequent enough to create masters, or that swordsmanship outside of fencing schools was not used often enough in combat then we are missing the scope of conflict in Europe at the time. |
Exactly what i was thinking. I remember last time we were in France, we were walking around in an old village near the coast in Provence (I think it was Ramatuelle), and i noticed all the little streets (alleys really) had names like 'avenue des saracen', and 'avenue des corsaires' etc. I asked about it and it was pointed out to me that moorish pirates had captured and occupied the town several times. We also noticed that where each town had it's chateau and it's castle, about half were ruins, having been burnt, usually by the guy in the next castle down the coast. For example the caslte at Bourmes Les Mimosas was burnt by the lord of the castle at bregancon, maybe twenty kilometers away. It really made me think of how chaotic and dangerous life was in those days...
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Eging
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian Hook wrote: | | Sean Flynt wrote: | | Brian Hook wrote: | | First I would like to put my two cents in on the idea that every medieval fencing master whom in the modern mind is akin to some unstoppable killing machine, It just didn’t happen. |
Nobody here has made such a claim. I might add that nobody here has equated western martial arts with Asian martial arts. Those seem to be straw men, and straw men don't make for convincing arguments. |
| Brian Hook wrote: |
| 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.
|
As I said before to Craig Peters, this is what the quote above sounds like to me with a bit exaggeration added to make a point, in this thread and I've heard it other times spoke that those mentioned above must be great fighters, also I never mention anything about Asian martial arts. As for straw men a true straw man, is stating that we as modern men for some reason can never achieve the same skill level as our forbears just because the situation can't arise to use our skill. |
And based on what I have seen and read, I have to stick with this position. We are recreating in the absence of context, regardless of views to the contrary. We do not have their intimate knowledge, muscle memory of combat use or conflict use, or even bouts with sharps to simulate life and death decisionmaking with this martial art. We do not know what was left out of the record that make pieces fit together better. We have never used these skills, except in bouts or study groups. It is like we have an academic understanding. I learned Russian for 5 long years in college. But my language muscles were no where near the level of someone who dug into the language real time and lived in Russia for 5 years. My peace time military experience will never put me at the same level as young men in combat or conflict today.
Not everyone is a great fighter. But the wiley fighter who knows how to exploit an opening can make up for shortcomings. Training is critical as a basis to give the tools for success. However, some of that street smarts can only come from application. On the ground work means modification, real time changes - built on the fundamentals. In a fashion, we may get the fundamentals down, as we understand them today, as best we can. And we can test them after a controlled fashion. But we do not have this conflict experience to keep them honed and refreshed at a level of martial competence. So, I do not think the assertion made by others here about not reaching this level is a strawman.
All the best,
Mike
M. Eging
Hamilton, VA
www.silverhornechoes.com
Member of the HEMA Alliance
http://hemaalliance.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
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. mean that the average knight, merchant or peasant ever saw any. Or, for that matter, the average fencing master. |
I disagree. We have had a more violent century in terms of full-scale war, but the State is a much more tighly organized and monolithic power center now days, at least in the first world / Northern Hemisphere. We have had much larger wars, but very few pirate raids, religious persecutions, battles between warlords, armed factional strife etc.
In the middle ages, situations like say, what happened in bosnia in the 90's was fairly routine all across Europe.
It's been a long time since pirates have raided coastal towns in the United States or England. I cannot remember any time in recent history when the mayor of Baltimore invaded Philidelphia. There hasn't been any defenstrations or armed street battles between Democrats or Republicans that i can remember (ala Guelph / Guibelline), or any towns forcibly evicting their mayors or religious leaders in armed conflicts (like the city of Cologne evicting their Archbishop). Last time i crossed a bridge i didn't see members of different trade unions and neigbhorhoods fighting with sticks.
This is what I read in the history books, maybe I'm missing something. On an individual level, I can't even count the number of anecdotes I've read of street fights, brawls, duels, judicial combats etc. (depending on the period) I really think it's either disengenous or a-historical to compare law and order today in the first world with the very real chaos of Medieval and Renaissance Europe.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | I don't think so Randall. This is an oft-repeated theme of your organization's website, and focus on this issue dates to John Clements' early strife in the late 1990's with those already holding that title, such as Ramon Martinez and Paul McDonald. |
Christian
You are correct, ARMA scholars do not recognize either man (nor any other persons) as a master of any Medieval or Renaissance martial art, especially since neither man has every published their linage. It has always been ARMA's position that a "master" title from Classical/Sports Fencing cannot be extended back to earlier weapon arts. Maestro Sean Hayes, who has published a very clear linage dating back into the 1700s, has earn a lot of respect among ARMA scholars because he does not attempt to extend his well earned "Maestro" title to any Medieval or Renaissance martial arts (http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23229).
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Francisco Uribe
Location: Lansing, MI Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | I don't think so Randall. This is an oft-repeated theme of your organization's website, and focus on this issue dates to John Clements' early strife in the late 1990's with those already holding that title, such as Ramon Martinez and Paul McDonald. |
Christian [/quote]
Mr Tobler,
As far as I know, none has been able to present any evidence of a unbroken lineage that can be traced to Rennaisance and medieval fighting methods.
It is a well known fact that are several organizations of classical fencing that grant master titles after deep testing of the candidate, as practical and theoretical exponent. Randall does well in taking Mr. Hayes as an example.
That is not the case of Mr. Martinez, nor Mr. McDonald.
They refuse or simply cannot produce any sort of evidence when required.
Mr. Martinez claim mastery from an obscure teacher, at his master's death bed.
Mr. McDonald was simply aknowleged, without any formal study nor testing just as a personal recognition, by another self-appointed master (Andrea Lupo) who is unknown in any serious european classical fencing circle.
Every other classical master had to go trough examination, and even so their methods are still unrelated to medieval and rennaisance.
Please if you have evidence of unbroken traditions, I would like much to examine it also.
Francisco Uribe
ARMA Lansing
Francisco J. Uribe-Romeo.
Increible facedor de entuertos.
furiber@yahoo.com
|
|
 |
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Randall and Francisco,
With all due respect, I think you guys are, perhaps unintentionally ,obfuscating the issue. Mr. Martinez and Mr. McDonald are themselves not the issue, but if ARMA's position on the title of master stems from some personal strife between them and your director, then perhaps the details of that strife are relevant to this topic and should be revealed.
Considering how ARMA usually speaks with one voice, I think it's important to know where you are coming from.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Michael Edelson wrote: |
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. mean that the average knight, merchant or peasant ever saw any. Or, for that matter, the average fencing master. |
I disagree. We have had a more violent century in terms of full-scale war, but the State is a much more tighly organized and monolithic power center now days, at least in the first world / Northern Hemisphere. We have had much larger wars, but very few pirate raids, religious persecutions, battles between warlords, armed factional strife etc.
In the middle ages, situations like say, what happened in bosnia in the 90's was fairly routine all across Europe.
It's been a long time since pirates have raided coastal towns in the United States or England. I cannot remember any time in recent history when the mayor of Baltimore invaded Philidelphia. There hasn't been any defenstrations or armed street battles between Democrats or Republicans that i can remember (ala Guelph / Guibelline), or any towns forcibly evicting their mayors or religious leaders in armed conflicts (like the city of Cologne evicting their Archbishop). Last time i crossed a bridge i didn't see members of different trade unions and neigbhorhoods fighting with sticks.
This is what I read in the history books, maybe I'm missing something. On an individual level, I can't even count the number of anecdotes I've read of street fights, brawls, duels, judicial combats etc. (depending on the period) I really think it's either disengenous or a-historical to compare law and order today in the first world with the very real chaos of Medieval and Renaissance Europe.
J |
A very well made point. And amusingly done at that. Your analogies do make me reconsider my own ideas about the violence of the era.
Thanks,
Steven
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven H wrote: | | Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Michael Edelson wrote: |
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. mean that the average knight, merchant or peasant ever saw any. Or, for that matter, the average fencing master. |
I disagree. We have had a more violent century in terms of full-scale war, but the State is a much more tighly organized and monolithic power center now days, at least in the first world / Northern Hemisphere. We have had much larger wars, but very few pirate raids, religious persecutions, battles between warlords, armed factional strife etc.
In the middle ages, situations like say, what happened in bosnia in the 90's was fairly routine all across Europe.
It's been a long time since pirates have raided coastal towns in the United States or England. I cannot remember any time in recent history when the mayor of Baltimore invaded Philidelphia. There hasn't been any defenstrations or armed street battles between Democrats or Republicans that i can remember (ala Guelph / Guibelline), or any towns forcibly evicting their mayors or religious leaders in armed conflicts (like the city of Cologne evicting their Archbishop). Last time i crossed a bridge i didn't see members of different trade unions and neigbhorhoods fighting with sticks.
This is what I read in the history books, maybe I'm missing something. On an individual level, I can't even count the number of anecdotes I've read of street fights, brawls, duels, judicial combats etc. (depending on the period) I really think it's either disengenous or a-historical to compare law and order today in the first world with the very real chaos of Medieval and Renaissance Europe.
J |
A very well made point. And amusingly done at that. Your analogies do make me reconsider my own ideas about the violence of the era.
Thanks,
Steven |
Here's a less amusing, but hopefully equally relevant, counter:
I live in New York City. In the last 25 years (the time I have lived here), we have had a major terrorist attack in which thousands died. Tens of thousands have been murdered in brutal acts of violence. MILLIONS have been either raped, robbed, burglarized or suffered some other violent crime. Billions of dollars in property has been destroyed in natural disasters, millions of cars have been stolen.
EDIT: I checked the statistics and edited the above numbers...I had severly understimated the number of incidents.
Show me a single medieval city that has lost that many people or suffered that many tragedies in a 25 year span. We're talking millions of violent crimes...millions! In an area just about 20 miles wide.
Yet neither I, nor any of my friends, nor anyone I know, have ever seen any of this first hand, except for one person who saw 9/11 up close and the fact that I saw the towers fall from my roof. I don't know anyone that has ever seen anyone mugged, or shot, or stabbed or even seriously assaulted.
You talk of a village that has been invaded a bunch of times...yet over how many years? How many of those invasions would a random villager have witnessed in the course of his or her life?
Something to consier, perhaps. The middle ages were violent, no doubt about that, but the question of how much violence a given person would have seen in his or her life is something that we perhaps will never really know.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
Last edited by Michael Edelson on Wed 25 Jul, 2007 5:37 pm; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | Randall and Francisco,
With all due respect, I think you guys are, perhaps unintentionally ,obfuscating the issue. Mr. Martinez and Mr. McDonald are themselves not the issue, but if ARMA's position on the title of master stems from some personal strife between them and your director, then perhaps the details of that strife are relevant to this topic and should be revealed.
|
Personally, I'm not aware of the issue of the title of "master" merely stemming from strife between our director and the aforementioned individuals. And our organization has been very consistent that we do not recognize anyone as a master of historic European martial arts, whether they are Mr. Martinez, Mr. McDonald, or someone else. So I disagree with the interpretation that ARMA's position on masters is something merely from personal strife. If anything, our dislike of the appellation "master" for modern students is because of the fact that such an appellation is antithetical to ARMA's philosophy on not tolerating pretense.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Peters wrote: | | Michael Edelson wrote: | Randall and Francisco,
With all due respect, I think you guys are, perhaps unintentionally ,obfuscating the issue. Mr. Martinez and Mr. McDonald are themselves not the issue, but if ARMA's position on the title of master stems from some personal strife between them and your director, then perhaps the details of that strife are relevant to this topic and should be revealed.
|
Personally, I'm not aware of the issue of the title of "master" merely stemming from strife between our director and the aforementioned individuals. And our organization has been very consistent that we do not recognize anyone as a master of historic European martial arts, whether they are Mr. Martinez, Mr. McDonald, or someone else. So I disagree with the interpretation that ARMA's position on masters is something merely from personal strife. If anything, our dislike of the appellation "master" for modern students is because of the fact that such an appellation is antithetical to ARMA's philosophy on not tolerating pretense. |
Hi Craig,
No offense, but you seem young (at least your avatar makes you seem so). Were you involved in ARMA in the early 90s?
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.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