| Author |
Message |
Jean Henri Chandler
|
 Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steven H wrote: |
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 |
Right back at you Steve, I think frankly there are a lot of ways of looking at things and I'm not dismissing the points you guys raised either out of hand, one thing I've learned about the Medieval period is that it was immensely complex. And very different from what is going on these days, even though we can also see familiar situations and kindred spirits sometimes in the pages of history.
Hopefully we can actually share our knowledge here and show a spirit of cooperation as you are doing instead of devolving into talking past each other as has happened so often on so many other forums. I think many of us simply want to know rather than to be right.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
  |
 |
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | 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? |
No, I wasn't. But even presupposing for a minute that you are absolutely 100% correct about the origin of ARMA's contempt for modern people taking the title of "master", is it really that relevant? I disagree with people taking the title of master because I find the arguments against it to be compelling. As JC recently pointed out, the historic European martial arts community can't even agree on much of the basics on this craft. How on earth then can anyone call themselves a "master" of these arts (which in a historical context did not simply mean "teacher" or "instructor", it meant someone with a high degree of skill in the art) when this is the case?
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | No offense, but you seem young (at least your avatar makes you seem so). Were you involved in ARMA in the early 90s? |
It's not just between ARMA and martinez and Paul Macdonald and the rest of them, though that is obviously the big rift going on right now. I think it's quite clear that a lot of other people (and some groups) are not entirely comfortable with the use of this term in the context of HEMA (not everybody posting to this thread has a chicken in that fight including me)
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 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | 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. |
Well, during the time the Papacy moved to Avignon, the regions of Northern Italy became a play ground for imperial armies, French armies, local dukes and princes, and other local employed and unemployed players. Some cities saw an army on a regular basis, while villages in the track were also affect. My gosh, the professors I studied medieval history under in graduate school would roll their eyes.  There are villages in Germany that were occupied one season by the Swiss, one season by the Germans, and another season by different Germans. I helped edit a book by my German medieval professor in college that accounted for physical force used in changing bishops from their sees on multiple occasions in less than a generation. A couple of times in a generation (20 years) is enough to create the generational memory.
Your contention that volume makes some sort of direct translation is apples and oranges. As someone from the NYC metro area as well, I survived the killing fields of I-80, know people who got mugged and attacked in NYC (as well as DC, Cleveland, etc.) and our culture is very much different in terms of response, use of types of force, ethical boundries, etc. And it has no bearing on historical life in Europe or use as a comparitor. It is not an all or nothing contention based on our 21st century understanding.
Certainly, some regions were more stable than Germany, Burgundy, the Netherlands, Northern Italy, parts of France and the Oster-reich. But my goodness, some of our historical masters came from these very regions with generational memory and martial skills that had been honed before they wrote them down (sometimes by others and likely shared with them as well)! Germany suffered badly from the Renaissance and Reformation warfare that tore the country apart and prevented unification as England emerged followed by other nation states. The religious wars in Germany included French conflict, Swedish conflict, Spanish (Hapsburg conflict), as well as regional contention among the princes (Electors) and the other nobility in Germany that kept the Empire weakend and the emperor less than effective. Italy during the renaissance was the center of warfare like a chess game between nations and cities that also involved conflict that broiled up every couple of years and involved sometimes the very same cities.
Anyway, my point is that the skills used on those battlefields found their way into what we study. Certainly, as I have said before, training is a peacetime foundation. But these skills were also battle tested at various points in their development, and I think more often than some want to admit.
M. Eging
Hamilton, VA
www.silverhornechoes.com
Member of the HEMA Alliance
http://hemaalliance.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Eging
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Steven H wrote: |
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 |
Right back at you Steve, I think frankly there are a lot of ways of looking at things and I'm not dismissing the points you guys raised either out of hand, one thing I've learned about the Medieval period is that it was immensely complex. And very different from what is going on these days, even though we can also see familiar situations and kindred spirits sometimes in the pages of history.
Hopefully we can actually share our knowledge here and show a spirit of cooperation as you are doing instead of devolving into talking past each other as has happened so often on so many other forums. I think many of us simply want to know rather than to be right.
J |
There is too much complexity to fit neatly into our 21st century constructed glass slipper. Regions, times, cultures, individual players all made this a time of complexity that defy generalities that get stretched too far. I think this debate also helps us learn far more about each other and hopefully we can find those intersections Jean alludes to.
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 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
Here's a less amusing, but hopefully equally relevant, counter:
I live in New York City. |
Ok, Mike, I live in New Orleans in the 9th ward and I lost my house in Katrina, so I know a little bit about major disasters too, and quite a bit about violent crime. Even here in New Orleans, which is vastly more dangerous than New York, we cannot begin to compare with the routine everyday crime in many European towns, coastal areas, and countrysides in various times during the Renaissance. Thats just the start.
| Quote: |
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. |
Well, in a way, it's a bit of a stretch as a comparison, since NYC has vastly more population than any city I know if in period, even Constantinople probably wasn't as big (I'll have to double check that)
So in terms of sheer numbers, since there are now 6 billion people in the world instead of 791 million in 1750, the scale is a little off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
However, even with that handicap, I'll take your challenge. Here are a few reality checks. Lets start with major events comparable to 911.
Going backward in history, consider the 30 years war between 1618 and 1648. Here's a little excerpt from the Wikipedia page. (my italics)
Germany's population was reduced by 30 % on average, in the territory of Brandenburg the losses had amounted to half, in some areas to an estimated two thirds of the population. Germany’s male population was reduced by almost half. Population of the Czech lands declined by a third. The Swedish armies alone destroyed 2,000 castles, 18,000 villages and 1,500 towns in Germany, the number represented one-third of all German towns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War
http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h25-war.html
You asked for one city, a good one would be Magdeburg in the Thirty Years war. The city was put to the torch and an estimated 20,000 people were killed by Catholic troops (most of the population). That blows 911 out of the water (3,000 people). That was the second famous time the motto "kill them all, god will know his own" was used (I'll get to the next one in a second.)
http://www.exulanten.com/thirty.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdeburg
There were lots of wars like that, from a real quick count it looks like about 50 wars in Europe from 1500-1599
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1500%E2%80%931799
Some other big ones include the Wars of Religion, the various wars in Italy, the border wars in Scotland, the Peasants war in Germany, the Hussite Rebellion, the Albigensian Crusade, etc. etc. etc. Then you have other disasters like the Black Plague.
Depopulations of whole cities were not unusual, it happened in the Italian wars several times. But it wasn't just in the Renaissance when everybody was toting guns, it happened in the Albigensian Crusade in 1209. The city of Beziers was put to the sword, an estimated 25,000 people were killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathars#Massacre
That was the first time a Papal Legate used the "Kill them all, God Will Know his own" (only 5,000 of them were even heretics...)
We could keep going...
Those are just big events, lets keep in mind the routine piracy, the real petty wars ala Chatau De Bregancon, the raids, the defenestrations, the rebellions and uprisings etc.
| Quote: | | 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. |
It's a good question. I think you are leaning way over on the side of things being organized and safe, I think they were more chaotic and violent but there were clearly moments of both violence and peace and order. Getting a sense of just how much violence an individual 'average' Eurpopean if you could really say such a thing. I'm not a history PhD or anything but every part of Europe I've looked into was extremely violent and calamatous, to use a term that Barbara Tuchmann coined in the title of her famous book Distant Mirror
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 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As a tag along to Jean's post, here is the link to an article on military spending and preparation in Germany and Switzerland. Based on the warfare I described and Jean then detailed, this is the result on the culture. It was pervasive.
Towns and Defence in Later Medieval Germany
by David Eltis
Nottingham Medieval Studies v.33 (1989)
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/eltis.htm
Violence in Medieval Courtly Literature: A Casebook
by Albrecht Classen
http://books.google.com/books?id=vwJsPyWT628C...QA#PPA3,M1
Also, see Morris Bishop, The Middle Ages, for an overview of conflict in during the period of the late middle ages and renaissance (pages 315 - 325 overview the region of Burgundy, France and Germany). The book, however goes into earlier periods as well - from serf revolts to beggers besieging Paris.
Slightly earlier, Chronicles of the Crusades by Joinville and Villehardouin. Wonder trek through medieval life as the crusaders descended on Constantinople.
And, The New Cambridge Medieval History: C.1300-c.1415 Vol 6
And of course the brilliant Barbara Tuchman book. But remember these are starting points. A lot of history also fell victim to those same conflicts, documents, artifacts, etc. So, even our knowledge is not complete, just as in Western Martial Arts.
I am digging for more as I recently moved and many are still in boxes. I hope my unpacking is of interest now to anyone
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 7:46 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Jean,
You should be aware that Tuchman's views on the 14th century are not well-regarded by most medievalists. I think this is for good reason; bad news makes the history books, so one can easily get the wrong impression from period accounts, which never feature this phrase: "Most people continued to live relatively peaceful, uneventful lives."
Consider how future generations might look at our news reports. They might conclude that no one was safe in our violent culture. And yet, how untrue that is...
What it comes down to is this: no matter how violent we may think the Middle Ages were, not every fencing master would've had experience killing. Simple statistics make such an idea untenable.
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
|
|
  |
|
|
Michael Eging
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hi Jean,
You should be aware that Tuchman's views on the 14th century are not well-regarded by most medievalists. I think this is for good reason; bad news makes the history books, so one can easily get the wrong impression from period accounts, which never feature this phrase: "Most people continued to live relatively peaceful, uneventful lives."
|
Christian:
Most is a broad generalization. I used to spend a lot of time with medievalists whom I resect and they rather liked the book as a starter, though dated in terms of some of the analytical structures, etc. Some critics focus on her conjecture to fill in gaps, not her getting the flow of facts and events right. All historians do this to an extent. So, I wouldn't dismiss the book. We should read everything with care.
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 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hi Jean,
You should be aware that Tuchman's views on the 14th century are not well-regarded by most medievalists. |
I know Tuchmann is dated, Distant Mirror was published in the 1978. I still think the 14th century was pretty calamitous, especially after 1348. We could agree to disagree on that.
I also understand your point about modern news headlines, the 20th century was pretty calamatous too, in Europe, but these were wars between large states for the most part. There wasn't as much piracy, say, or as much ethnic cleansing of the Bosnia type, as there were for example in the Wars of Religion or the 30 years war or the Albigensian Crusades, or in any of the hundreds of major and minor wars which took place between 1300 and 1650. Ravaging the countryside was so routine as to be almost an afterthought in the histories of this period, as were bloody fights between various factions within towns and cities. Do I need to cite more examples?
The bottom line is that I believe the level of mayhem and instabality, whether on the scale of Madgeburg or just routine muggings and street fights in London, was considerably higher than it is today, as was the death rate in general to all causes.
As for the Masters, I agree not every master had killed anyone in combat necessarily, but I bet a fair number of them had fought for real more than once (as in the example of Fiore cited above). More importantly, in a given fencing school in say, the 1420's, there would be several people who had seen armed conflict, much more so than today. Writers and artists in the First World in the 21st century do not typically get tortured like Machiavelli, fight in wars like Dante or get captured by pirates, like Cervantes. So in the salon there is a reality check, even if the Master himself wasn't a killer, there were very likely people around who were. They could see right away if he was teaching real lethal techniques or just making a pantomime. Many of a given Masters students would and did fight duels or judicial combat, defend themselves from highwaymen on the road, fight off robbers in the city streets, fight in factional disputes, raids, or full scale wars. Thats the big difference between then and now. We don't have that feedback loop any more.
I also think it's obvious (and not at all unrelated) that training and related activities like prize play were often considerably rougher than what we do today.
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 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hi Jean,
You should be aware that Tuchman's views on the 14th century are not well-regarded by most medievalists. |
I know Tuchmann is dated, Distant Mirror was published in the 1978. I still think the 14th century was pretty calamitous, especially after 1348. We could agree to disagree on that.
I also understand your point about modern news headlines, the 20th century was pretty calamatous too, in Europe, but these were wars between large states for the most part. There wasn't as much piracy, say, or as much ethnic cleansing of the Bosnia type, as there were for example in the Wars of Religion or the 30 years war or the Albigensian Crusades, or in any of the hundreds of major and minor wars which took place between 1300 and 1650. Ravaging the countryside was so routine as to be almost an afterthought in the histories of this period, as were bloody fights between various factions within towns and cities. Do I need to cite more examples?
The bottom line is that I believe the level of mayhem and instabality, whether on the scale of Madgeburg or just routine muggings and street fights in London, was considerably higher than it is today, as was the death rate in general to all causes.
As for the Masters, I agree not every master had killed anyone in combat necessarily, but I bet a fair number of them had fought for real more than once (as in the example of Fiore cited above). More importantly, in a given fencing school in say, the 1420's, there would be several people who had seen armed conflict, much more so than today. Writers and artists in the First World in the 21st century do not typically get tortured like Machiavelli, fight in wars like Dante or get captured by pirates, like Cervantes. So in the salon there is a reality check, even if the Master himself wasn't a killer, there were very likely people around who were. They could see right away if he was teaching real lethal techniques or just making a pantomime. Many of a given Masters students would and did fight duels or judicial combat, defend themselves from highwaymen on the road, fight off robbers in the city streets, fight in factional disputes, raids, or full scale wars. Thats the big difference between then and now. We don't have that feedback loop any more.
I also think it's obvious (and not at all unrelated) that training and related activities like prize play were often considerably rougher than what we do today.
J |
Jean hit the nail on the head, so to speak. I said this earlier as well. A master may not have drawn in conflict, though statistically given the conflicts in the regions where many of our masters lived, it is likely that many did at some point or someone in their school or circle did. And I bet they exchanged that information in some fashion, refined techniques, honed their skills, etc. But, given the period and the regions of Burgundy, France, Italy and Germany that were involved in war during the 15th through early 17th centuries, the likelihood is there was plenty of practice to go around. This time was infused in the martial art and reflected in ways that we may never fully understand. This is a physical art and, honestly, I would bet we are only scratching the surface because the physicality, the flow of form, etc. they used cannot be seen first hand by us. We are reconstructors and are missing the real life pieces of the puzzle. Historians of a martial art, so to speak. We interpret and are guilty of some of the same shortcomings we see in historians...
Hence... to bring it back... that is why some of us cannot understand use of the term "master" to denote a higher level of skill (not just a teacher) and context we cannot recreate. We are all students of this martial form and I am actually very glad to have the opportunity to study it.
All the best,
Mike
M. Eging
Hamilton, VA
www.silverhornechoes.com
Member of the HEMA Alliance
http://hemaalliance.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Michael & Jean,
| Quote: | | We are all students of this martial form and I am actually very glad to have the opportunity to study it. |
To me your last sentence is what it's all about for those who inherently object to the idea of a modern master. There's a comfort in the egalitarian notion that everyone is equally a student of the sword in this endeavor. That, however, is no more true now than it was in 1450.
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. 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.
The lack of a living lineage is, for me, blown out of proportion. Surely, no one thinks a modern Japanese sword master is teaching just the way his ancestral teachers did. The passage of time changes many things.
On to Jean's point...how calamitous was the 14th c.? Probably quite, but not because of sword casualties, rather more because of the Plague.
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: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about a successful warrior defined as someone surviving mostly intact numerous full scale battles, friendly and not so friendly jousting, maybe a few duels, be considered a de-facto " master " in the art of winning fights and staying alive !
Would such a person be automatically a master or expert of fighting techniques in the academic theoretical knowledge sense ?
A less skilful fighter, in the sense of not knowing every possible techniques, but with superior instincts, nerves of steel quicker than average reaction times and athletic talent might be more successful in a real fight than a more knowledgeable but less gifted " Master ".
Someone like William Marshal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Marshal,...f_Pembroke
Or Miyamoto Musashi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi
There could also be the chicken or the egg question: Did Master teach warriors technique or did seeing how great fighters fought inspire the techniques that were written down or codified !? Someone had to be the first to use a sword and over centuries what worked by plan or by accident was noted and expanded on.
I think we can find different kinds of " masters " and definitions that are interesting in discussing without obsessing about
ego or political issues if trying to improve our understanding is the goal rather than winning debating points.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I really don't care what people call themselves, at this point it's exactly like people walking around with black belts claiming to be Ninjas, and exactly as valid. We may all separate out to our natural places in the great order of things, but frankly right now there aren't a whole lot of people who are masters of HEMA. Do you think the books, the interpretations of today are going to hold up in say, ten years?
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | On to Jean's point...how calamitous was the 14th c.? Probably quite, but not because of sword casualties, rather more because of the Plague. |
Are you suggesting, Christian, that there wasn't an immense amount of sword (and lance, and halberd, and mace and crossbow etc etc.) related deaths in the 14th Century and throughout the Medieval period?
Well I've said my piece anyway, clearly there are some vastly different perspectives at work here as to what the Renaissance and Medieval periods were actually like.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 9:19 pm 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....
|
Once more from the peanut gallery, and in the end, I think this is probably the key point I've taken from this discussion.
Standards will be defined by somebody and accepted by enough other-bodies to make them sticky because its a very logical and market oriented thing to do. Rejecting that standardization process, for whatever very good reasons, will probably not ultimately stop it if people want it. Certainly fragmentation will occur, but eventually I suspect a dejure standard, or at least a defacto standard, will emerge.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
Last edited by Joe Fults on Thu 26 Jul, 2007 7:14 am; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why can't each organization have their own definition of status, rank, or mastery? Without a guild, union, or unifying structure, there can be no absolute in any of these terms. What's wrong with that?
In my business, a "master" photographic retoucher at Company A has distinctly different level of skills than a "master" photographic retoucher at Company B. The notion of ranking of these things is to identify the level of workmanship, and thus their billing rate, a client will be able to get within an organization, not within an industry. Simply put, industry standards do not exist for such things.
Why should they exist for the topic at hand?
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.
Edward from Organization-X is a Master. Thomas from Organization-X is a Scholar. James from Organization-X is an Provost. This gives a grand idea of how these three individuals are classified within Organization-X. That's extremely helpful. Why does anybody care beyond that?
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
 |
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | 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.
The lack of a living lineage is, for me, blown out of proportion. Surely, no one thinks a modern Japanese sword master is teaching just the way his ancestral teachers did. The passage of time changes many things. |
I think that's a good point. Some things get lost through oral transmission, just as some get lost in writings.
Frankly I'm getting more and more convinced that the art must be personaly rediscovered at each generation, starting off a common but necessarily incomplete base left by the previous generation. Whether the common base is a book written generations ago with transmission of the art in mind (many books on rapier seem to fall in that category, for other weapons I don't really know), or a set of kata that are obfuscated on purpose, maybe the end result does not change all that much.
It's not like all japanese masters agree on how certain things should be done either. Even inside one school, there are variants among instructors, differing interpretations of katas and moves, whose amplitude sometime surpass that of some technical matters that raise passionate debates here.
Branching of schools happens all the time, and the master of one branch can have a form that would perhaps have him rejected on a first dan exam of another (that's a bit of an exageration, but in reality it's not so far). He remains a master nonetheless, because he has studied for a long time, has gained an internal consistency, and is acknowledged so by his peers.
Saying that oriental arts in general do not have a problem with who is a master, just because they are supposed to have a living lineage, is oversimplification of the issue. They have the same problem, and settle it exactly as Nathan said: your rank is only really significant inside your school, organization, branch or whatever.
The problem is that we would like to have "masters of longsword", but this will never be precise enough. Just as "master of katana" does not make much sense without precising the school...
Regards
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jul, 2007 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello all ~
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.
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.
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