[Sean Flynt]

[Michael Edelson]

[Greg Griggs]

[Mike Cartier]

masters had not only great knowledge but demonstrable skill above and beyond the ordinary practitioner.

making some sort of difference between fechtschule environment and non fechtschule ignores the fact that these arts we taught for war. Meyer for example, no matter what you thought of his contribution to martial arts was a master at arms for several prominent leaders of the time and was asked to make his book by the greatest of leaders in his time and era for the purposes of indoctrinatiing more people into the knightly arts of war for the purposes of going to war. As stated in his book in several places, germans of his day needed skills in war. I doubt these masters showed up to train armies with no experience with war or fighting. The very term master was only applied after extensive testing , by testing i mean fighting, not posing not lecturing or instructing but fighting. This testing was done by his peers not laymen, so anyone today attempting to use the name master or fechtmeister is only going to be able to do so by belittling the reality of what that meant back then. Thats why so many of us find it so insulting to the entire field of HEMA for people to be claiming master titles, the only way they can justify it is like Hugh Knight is doing, by trying to pass the title off as some nominal thing that did not get bought with blood sweat over a lifetime and require frequent evidence of skill, a title of no importance really that any of us can claim as soon as we get two other people to call us master.

I have no pretentions of what the words master means in the rest of the martial arts world today, it is not some mystical title, that mysticism is a fantasy. Masters today, as yesterday were men of great skill in thier field who demonstrated this skill to the rest of the skilled practitioners in his field. By group consent they would bestow the title after he showed his skills in a competetive manner, not simply a theory test.

Seeing as modern HEMA practitioners do not fight as hard as even our fechtschule brethren who we cast so many doubtful references to, i don't see how any of us have any right whatsoever to bestow this title of master on anyone, none of us are tested in the manner on the masters of old and we do not even match the danger levels and experience acheived by the fechtschule. So lets just train and stop worrying about titles and who is what, we are all nothing and frankly without the practical need we lack the motivation to ever be as martial as the great masters.

The problem is HEMA is brought low by the collective actions of hollywood and SCA type organizations whose well meaning but misguided actions have made the average persoon see no value or content in HEMA whatsoever. Its a giant hole we are hard pressed to climb out of and collectivly the HEMA community has been digging its way out but when some one comes along and flaunts silly titles in reference top what we do we are dragged back down into the pit of ignorance and bad information. What purpose do these titles serve but to puff egos and practice self agrandizement. I see no need for this.

[Hugh Knight]

[Michael Edelson]

[Randall Pleasant]

[Jason G. Smith]

Just my $.02 - I tend to agree with Hugh and others on this. Our fencing school is called Les Maitres D'armes, which for those of you not fluent in the language of Moliere, means "Masters at Arms." Now, we make no pretention of being masters of any kind, but in light of what a master at arms was - someone who taught and oversaw fencing etc., we are qualified in that regard, and that was our only intent. It only came to our attention afterwards - after catching some flak for using what some snobs refer to as a "reserved title" - that some people took master of arms to be something quite different from what we proposed. There are two very different views on what a master is.

Now, if you ask me if I am a master of the art (as in having mastered it), then I most definitely am not - this art hasn't even been fully explored yet. On the other hand, if you ask me if I am someone's master, then in a sense I am - they learn from me, I teach what I know, and I get recognition as such from my students. 'Nuff said.

Cheers,
Jason

[Michael Edelson]

[Jason G. Smith]

[Randall Pleasant]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Brian Hook]

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. 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. Medieval society and laws are pretty similar to those today. It isn’t like ancient Japan where if another bumped into your scabbard you’d challenge him to a duel to the death (which also rarely happened), if you did so punishment for the both of you would be serve if not fatal. (and the case more likely is that said incident would never have happened because many places outlawed wearing swords about the in open). Even wars which where more common then, where like Hugh said still infrequent enough to create these master warriors modern WMA students create in their minds. It would like saying there are no masters at combat in modern age warfare because no solider is out there fighting 40 guys solo armed with a machine gun and knife, or only served in one war during his life time. Think of masters of firearms and only a child would think of Rambo like character, while the rest of use would think Navy Seal (or equivalent). A Police officer may need never to kill or even shoot his/her firearm in earnest and still be a master in firearms.
Like Michael stated medieval fencing guilds existed to create other fencing teachers, who of which trained nobles for combat at war, tournament, or Judicial duels where we see in the works of Paulus Kal and Talhoffer the masters themselves at ring side acting as a coach as you will, their jobs not as combatants but as trainers, being a noble you where much more likely to have to fight a judicial duel or in tournament then as a fencing teacher, remember there is no evidence at all that those we hold as ancient masters of the art (Liechtenauer, Ringneck, Talhoffer, Paulus Kal and so forth) were master fighters or that they ever even had to fight at all!
There is two types of Master in my opinion when we think of Historical marital arts, The Master Fighter which the amazing fighter whom could fight almost anyone and win (Which we will never have today because we no longer practice judicial duels with fatal consequence and the like, and also may have never existed in history to being with.) Or a Fight master who is a master teacher, whom like Ringneck and Talhoffer have an such a great understanding of the art it allows them to successfully teach it to others, this does not mean that they are in anyway shape or form the end all of warriors themselves, but it means they have a special insight which allows them to train others in the martial ways, if you look at modern sports such as bodybuilding or boxing, you can see many successful trainers whom have no muscle or a chance at hell in a fight! Yet they are some if not the best trainers in the world. This is what I would believe a modern master of arms is today, and I feel that there is no reason besides pigheadedness or hero worship that they shouldn’t be labeled as such.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Brian;

I agree with what you just said above and I would add that in every field the best teachers ( masters at giving knowledge ) are not always the best practitioners: A great piano teacher or dance teacher may not have the innate talent to be the best himself but has the eye or ear as well as the theoretical knowledge to help those who have the greatest potential to get as good as possible.

A great teacher will have mastery of the technique at least at the level of understanding how things work but might not be physically able to perform at the highest possible level.

Oh, personally I just started learning WMA longsword and I'm not looking for a GURU or " master " as someone to follow like a new cult member.

I consider very much my teacher as a " master/teacher " in the sense that he knows a lot more than I do and is at least capable of teaching the basics. How he would measure up to the best current teachers or the period teachers I don't know and don't care at the moment as long as he isn't teaching faulty technique.

I personally like the totally non competitive approach where the point is to learn and not win titles or belts or trophies etc ...
I'm doing it for the fun of it and to get some minimal insight about how Medieval swordsmanship really worked.

Now, a more ambitious approach studying and working very hard to become very very good at it is perfectly fine also and maybe I will get to that point eventually, but not a problem to me if I just continue learning for fun.

[Greg Coffman]

Commentary from Fiore on the subject:

"And most of all I was wary of other fencing Masters and of their students. And they, the Masters, out of envy demanded me to fight with cut and thrust swords in zuparello darmare, without any other armour except for a pair of suede (chamois) gloves; and all this had happened because I did not want to practice with them and teach them anything of my art. And this fact happened five times. And five times, for my honour, I have had to fight in unfamiliar places without relatives and without friends, not trusting anyone but God and my art and myself, Fiore, and my sword. And by the grace of God, I, Fiore, kept my honour and I did not injure myself."

"Also I, the aforementioned Fiore, say that these noble knights and squires, to whom I showed this art of combat, have been satisfied of my teachings, not wanting any other master but me. Also I say that none of my students, especially those mentioned above, have ever had a book about the art of combat, except for Messer Galeazzo da Mantova. Because he said that without books no one can be a good master or a good student in this art. And I, Fiore, confirm it to be true, because this art is so vast that there is no one in the world who has such a big memory to keep in mind the fourth section of this art without books. Though not knowing the fourth section of this art I would not be a Master any more. So that I, Fiore, being able to read and write and draw, and having books about this art and having studied it for 40 years and more, yet I am not a perfectly good master in this art, although I am considered a good and perfect master in the art I mentioned above, by great noblemen who have been my students. And if I say that if I had studied for 40 years law and politics and medicine as I studied the art of combat, I would have been doctor in those three subjects. And in this science of combat I had big difficulties and effort and consequences, to be just a good student. I, the aforementioned Fiore, considering that of this art there are few Masters in the world, and wanting be remembered in it, I will write a book about the whole art and about all the things I know, of steel and of tempere and of other things..."

I take solace that the fighters themselves did not all agree on what it meant to be a "master." Fiore says that despite his long study which in other proffessions would make him a master, in this art he still struggles to be a good student.

Also, an observation about the apprentice/journyman/master system. This system seems to be dependant on a guild in place to employ, set standards, train, evaluate, etc. In historic fencing, such guilds do not seem to crop up until perhaps the late 15 century(?) and there were still many fighters and teachers who probably didn't belong to any guild. So it seems that many of the teachers were fairly independant and could claim to be a "master" without real credentials. Fiore's credentials were in question on five occasions from other masters and he was forced to fight to defend himself. Yet he was considered a master by those he trained.

Perhaps others could chime in with more information on the life of Fiore and how much combat he experienced outside of judicial duals and fighting in the barriers...

[Michael Edelson]

Greg,

Thank you for that post! I've never read Fiore, but I'm starting to think I should. Being able to get inside his head and life experiences through his writing is priceless.

[Craig Peters]

I think there is a gross misrepresentation of the position being applied to those who dislike the appellation of "master" for modern historic European martial artists. 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. I also doubt that anyone is under any illusions that many knights were "lucky" to see more than a few battles in their lifetime. Nor is anyone under the illusion that masters were individuals of superhuman capacity. The suggestion that we might be under this illusion is silly, nonsensical and absurd.

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. And, moreover, as Jeff has correctly pointed out, some of them used their skills, or taught others their skills, which were used in earnest. We know that Fiore had to fight for his life, for example. 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.

So for modern people who are reconstructing these arts to have the name "master" in any way, shape or form associated with them or their organization is to do a great disservice to the men who actually were recognized masters in the period, and whose skills could be used, if need be, in life and death encounters.

[Craig Peters]

[Michael Eging]

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. Just so different. Martial skills likely were important in a much different way than we are used to. Laws were on the books in early America, but early settlers carried weapons as well for those lawless contigencies.

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. Warfare was not always massive amounts of armies which mobilized whole nations. But during the period we are interested in (1300 to 1700), there was the Hundred Years War, which brought a fair bit of instability (note I did not say, however constant warfare) to a significant portion of France. Italy was a hot bed of warfare between the small principalities and city states, etc. The Holy Roman Emperor dueled with the French in Northern Italy as well as anyone else trying to keep the Empire out. The Oster-portions of the Empire were locked in warfare with peoples farther East. I was just skimming some of my history books for conflict (not just wars) and Europe was a pretty turbulent place in pockets and larger encounters. Wars of the 1500s and 1600s were brutal as well and embroiled significant portions of Germany, the Netherlands, etc. Border encounters in Northern England were dangerous affairs. Europe had lots of smaller deadly affairs going on at the time, in addition to the larger ones.

These skills were not just taught to gentlemen for the sake of sport, but for the sake of survival in conflict (whether great or small). Were there sport elements? Undoubtly, during the down time, or even to hone the skills in bouts during times of war. But as noted before by others, bouting with sharps makes for a different level of free play than any of us have encountered before. These skills had real world application that none of us can duplicate. Now did the masters have these same combat honed skills? Not documented in every instance (though Craig has noted some significant experience), I grant you that. 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.

I think it is easy to get into generalities that we try to squeeze into Cinderella's shoe that are sometimes not quite accurate. I am sure much of what we study was tested in conflict in some fashion. Passed along during times of peace and used during times of war (or other bodily conflict).

When I look at the master title, versus the teacher title, I look at the context. Clearly we do not understand the documents at the level of medieval or renaissance masters. Nor do we have experience with judicial combat, bouts with sharps, use of techniques in a back alley or on a battlefield. I think we can teach our interpretation of the documents, but very hard to claim "mastery," which most seem to agree in this thread. 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.

Anyway, my long winded musings.

[Ben M.]

So I've been lurking on these forums for a bit now, but this thought just forced me to finally register to express it.

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.

It's not an issue of evolving ideas, either. Someone might be referred to as a master of something of our time and will have to change how they perform something due to a new invention or more efficient means of operation. However, in direct contrast to that, we're still trying to figure out 100% of what the base material is saying.

I understand that that there were different ways to go about something between source authors, but people don't even always agree on what one author is trying to say.

If I am just totally off base, someone let me know. I try to avoid all of this and am simply curious.