Qualifications of the Masters (Split from Sport Grappling)

[Michael Chidester]

No one that I have taken to be a credible teacher or practictioner of these art will say that it exists today in it's fully developed state where it was abandoned centuries ago. We, as a community, are trying to develop our understanding of how this art worked in it's prime age. To assume anyone understand this art completely without having tried and tested it in a battle of life and death is simply absurd. We may never know masters in our day until the sword and close range tactical skills once again decides the fate of nations.

Please. You're just parroting John Celements--this argument is old and tired, and has been for years. I've said it before and I'll say it again: false humility serves no one. Lying to ourselves about how much of the art we understand after ten years of serious research serves no one. This mythology of Masters only being made through mortal combat is something that we modern practitioners invented, and I think it's held us back for long enough now.

There's no evidence to suggest that even most historical masters had actual combat experience, let alone were tested on a battlefield. We know that Fiore did (exactly five times, and his relief over surviving them is obvious even in his sparse description), but the only evidence that we have of Sigmund am Ringeck or Peter von Danzig's careers is the testimony of their books, which don't mention that they fought any actual battles at all. The only fact we have about Hanko Doebringer was that he was a priest--not a knight (any ideas of him as a knight who retired to a monastery are pure speculation)--and therefore his experience in killing with a sword is unlikely. And of Johannes Liechtenauer, the Founder of our Art if ever there was one, we know even less; if the testimony of 'Doebringer' is to be believed, he dedicated his life to traveling all over Christendom hunting down masters of renown--and therefore likely did most or all of his fighting in various Fechtschule, not in dark alleys. Later masters like Joachim Meyer weren't even teaching a practiced art anymore, and were merely trying to preserve the traditions of the past--when would Meyer ever have even carried a sharp longsword, let alone defended his life with it?

If you want to talk about actual history, we have records of some of what actually was required for mastery. The London Company of Masters had no requirement of killing a man in order to qualify for the rank of Master under their system; they required years of training (officially 28, but sometimes as little as 10) and a series of public exhibition matches. The German fighting guilds--including Meyer's--didn't require blood on your hands either. Even George Silver, the John Clements of his day, only asked that a would-be masters prove himself capable of holding his own against novices, drunks, and other masters in sparring matches.

[Michael Chidester]

I agree, but no one is saying that we should develop a Ringen-based version of BJJ. The entire point of this thread is to compile evidence that ground-and-pound/submission grappling techniques existed in HEMA and then to discuss ways those techniques can be incorporated into modern Ringen competition. The problem is when people want to restrict techniques based on what they want Ringen to look like, not based on what it actually is according to the record.

QFT

If we get wrapped up in trying to be different, what we'll very likely end up doing is warping the historical art beyond recognition. If it ends up looking like Judo, all that means is that the Japanese knew what was what when it comes to grappling too.

[Jay Vail]

Please. You're just parroting John Celements--this argument is old and tired, and has been for years. I've said it before and I'll say it again: false humility serves no one. Lying to ourselves about how much of the art we understand after ten years of serious research serves no one. This mythology of Masters only being made through mortal combat is something that we modern practitioners invented, and I think it's held us back for long enough now.

WHatever your feelings about JC, he's right on this. It is very clear that the techniques in the masters are based on actual combat experience, whether their own or that of others personally observed is patently clear. Fiore and Talhoffer both prepared men for fighting in the barriers and there can be no doubt that they at least personally observed such fights. If other writers make no such claims or exhibit evidence of personal involvement in personal combat, that does not negate the inference that the techniques are the result of personal experience with violence.

Few people today AMA and certainly in our field have ANY personal experience with violence, other that a little bit of combat sports like MMA and certainly not with sharps. This lack of first hand experience seriously undermines anyone's claim to mastership. I have known dozens of guys who claimed the title of master and I can count on one hand those who may have deserved it, and that was mainly because of their upstanding character. ALL of them advocated techniques and approaches that were insane if applied in personal combat and/or directly contradicted advice of men who in fact been in real fights. Consequently, what modern so-called masters teach is as likely to be wrong as right.

The word "master" today implies an almost semi-divine status in which the claimant can walk on water and defeat multiple opponents blindfolded. THis is clearly BS. I tend feel nothing but contempt for most people who claim to be masters. They are misleading people about about the utility of their teaching because much of it hasn't been validated.

Rejection of the title of mastership or the right of anyone to claim that title is not “false humility.” It is realism. This is particularly so in HEMA. A large dose of humility is necessary here. None of our interpretations has been validated in the most crucial way. That is through use in combat. Until they were, our interpretations remain tentative and conjectural.

Besides, humility in the combat arts is always a good thing. Whether you think yourself a master or not, you can still be defeated.

[Michael Chidester]

WHatever your feelings about JC, he's right on this.

Is he? While I realize the religious significance that this particular cow has to many, let's take a hard look at it.

It is very clear that the techniques in the masters are based on actual combat experience, whether their own or that of others personally observed is patently clear. Fiore and Talhoffer both prepared men for fighting in the barriers and there can be no doubt that they at least personally observed such fights. If other writers make no such claims or exhibit evidence of personal involvement in personal combat, that does not negate the inference that the techniques are the result of personal experience with violence.

Talhoffer makes no such claim to my recollection. Obviously he trained men to fight lethal duels, but there's no mention of he himself ever killing. You also mention Fiore, and he was indeed an accomplished duelist (according to his account) and combat veteran (according to historical records, which place him as an artillery commander in a local civil war). Let's look at his account, shall we? He mentions several of his students, but only a few anecdotes of their fights: Lancilotto Beccaria of Pavia fought a "duel" consisting of six mounted bouts with blunted lances; Zohanni de Baio da Milano's "duel", on the other hand, consisted of three bouts each with blunt lances, axes, swords, and daggers (the latter three on foot). No details are given of Galeazzo da Mantova's duel with Marshal Boucicault of France, but fortunately these men were important enough that historical record exists; because of this, we know that the Duke of Milan called the match after the first bout.

Of himself, Fiore says the following:

I used even more precautions with other Masters of Arms and their students. Out of envy, some Masters challenged me to combat with sharp swords in a gambeson and without any other defensive weapon besides a pair of chamois gloves. The reason was that I had refused to associate with them or to reveal to them any parts of my art. This happened no less than five times, and all five times I was compelled by honor to fight in strange places, far away from relatives or friends and without anything to rely upon besides God, the Art, myself, Fiore, and my sword. By the grace of God, I came through each time with my honor intact and without any physical injuries.

I have always told my students who had to fight in the lists that doing so is far less dangerous than combat with sharp swords in a gambeson. With sharps and a gambeson, a single failed parry can be fatal , while in the lists a combatant wearing good armor can receive multiple hits and still go on to win the fight. Also, oftentimes none of the combatants dies because one will hold the other for ransom. This is why I always say that I’d sooner fight three contests in the lists than a single one with sharp swords, as I have described.

So much for that. He fought five duels, hated every one of them, and urged his students to never actually get the kind of experience that you argue is what makes a Master. And as far as I know, that's more than we can say for any other Master that we study.

My Fiore studies aside, I am one who reads from the Book of Liechtenauer and holds it close to my heart. And none of his students claim personal combat experience. In fact, as I already mentioned, of the great man himself the following is said:

And before other things you should notice and know that there is only one art of the sword., and it was invented and put together many hundreds of years before, and it is a basis and a core of all the arts of fighting. Master Liechtenauer learnt and mastered this art in a thorough and rightful way, but he did not invent and put together this art, as it is stated before. Instead, he traveled and searched many countries with the will of learning and mastering this rightful and true art.

No killing folk mentioned or even alluded to, unless you assume that the "thorough and rightful way" involves murder--but that would be using your conclusion to prove your conclusion correct.

Few people today AMA and certainly in our field have ANY personal experience with violence, other that a little bit of combat sports like MMA and certainly not with sharps. This lack of first hand experience seriously undermines anyone's claim to mastership. I have known dozens of guys who claimed the title of master and I can count on one hand those who may have deserved it, and that was mainly because of their upstanding character. ALL of them advocated techniques and approaches that were insane if applied in personal combat and/or directly contradicted advice of men who in fact been in real fights. Consequently, what modern so-called masters teach is as likely to be wrong as right.

This much is true. The only person in our community that I know has had to fight for his life is Brian Hunt. However, funny thing about that second part: Fiore said the same thing six hundred years ago. "I have seen a thousand people calling themselves masters, of which perhaps four were good scholars, and of those four scholars not one would be a good teacher." So much for masters being better in old days than they are now.

The word "master" today implies an almost semi-divine status in which the claimant can walk on water and defeat multiple opponents blindfolded. THis is clearly BS. I tend feel nothing but contempt for most people who claim to be masters. They are misleading people about about the utility of their teaching because much of it hasn't been validated.

I agree completely that this inflated idea of what mastery means is a bad thing.

I've laid down my evidence for what mastery is and isn't, Jay: actual requirements for mastery as recorded in historical documents. I only have knowledge of the English system, of course; if an expert on the German guilds, such as the Freifechter or the Marxbruder, comes on and verifies that they required a body count in order to qualify for mastery, I will withdraw my argument immediately. Short of that, I'm still waiting for evidence. Did killing happen back in those days? Of course. Did you need to participate in it to be a good fighter? It looks like no.

[Jake Norwood]

Hi Mike.

I'm inclined to agree with most of your views/arguments on this one. However, I am with Jay in one key area.

...the techniques in the masters are based on actual combat experience, whether their own or that of others personally observed ….

I think you may be right when you say that many of the ancient masters may not have had much (if any) real combat experience, at least not of the to-the-death variety. Given the times, though, I have little doubt that they witnessed their share. More than that, the techniques they present were, at some point in time, combat-proven…or if not, what are we striving to become masters of?

No one should think that in this book there are false or erroneous concepts because, eliminating the ambiguities, I have described in it only techniques that I have invented, or seen, or tried. (http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/li ... fiore.html)

Along a similar note, while we don't know Talhoffer's personal combat record, there is little doubt that some of Talhoffer's students fought to the death in the Kampfring. I find it really unlikely that witnessing that wouldn't have effected Talhoffer's personal practice and his teachings to future students.

A great many trappings of military training for close-quarters-combat (with rifles, not hand to hand, necessarily) have been changed in the last several years, specifically because those techniques entered a time when they were regularly tested in real fighting. There was so much fighting across Europe in the 14th-17th centuries that it is unfathomable to me that the masters' teachings wouldn't be grounded in combat proven techniques.

Clearly we all believe that the ancient masters' techniques were efficacious, else we wouldn't train them. This is true whether we think of Master as a word that simply means "Teacher" (which is more my take on it) or "awesome ninja guy on a mountain." The question we face now is, are the techniques we are now training the same ones that the ancient masters taught? More and more the answer, I believe, is "yes." Though there's still plenty of room to grow…

Jake,

[Michael Chidester]

I agree completely that the Art is combat-effective and combat-proven. Aside from the Fiore quote (and it's interesting that he's the focal point of this discussion so far), his book is sprinkled with statements such as

"This grabbing of the sword is called the upper grab
And was done a thousand times by Fiore from Friuli."

"...As is written above, I am the middle sword disarm, who a thousand times was made by Fiore Furlano."

And so on. My only bone of contention is this idea that to be a true master, you must have used it to kill in defense of your life. I think that it is quite possible to develop the skill and mindset of a master swordsman without the experience of mortal combat. Even that one quote that gets bandied about a lot to the effect of 'You must see your blood flow and hear your teeth crack under the fist of your adversary and be thrown to the ground a hundred times' doesn't go that far.

[Michael-Forest]

I am somewhat confused as to what the actual argument is here.

Do we not all agree that the Art was lethal? That a master of it would be capable of killing, even if he had never killed, or never needed to?

Can not the Art be lethal today, equally capable of killing, even though we generally never kill with it? What is the argument?

[Michael Chidester]

Can not the Art be lethal today, equally capable of killing, even though we generally never kill with it?

That seems to be the argument.

[Jay Vail]

My only bone of contention is this idea that to be a true master, you must have used it to kill in defense of your life. I think that it is quite possible to develop the skill and mindset of a master swordsman without the experience of mortal combat.

If this is what the argument is about then I surrender. I agree with this completely. You can be a master without having been in combat. But if you're a martial arts master, you can't claim mastership if you base the claim on mastery of techniques that have not been proven to be martially valid. I think we all agree that the material in the manuals is martially valid (if only we could conclusively determine how they did things).

MY POINT is three fold. First is that in HEMA we are nowhere near the point where any of us can claim the level of skill at which one could claim the title (assuming we even know what that level of skill is). There is reason to believe that we have a good handle on how the ancients did things, but I am a little skeptical that we are there, given the fact that some people are still quarreling over how a proper cut is made. Once we have that question definitively settled ...

Second, the term "master" has modern connotations that are misleading. People expect a "master" to be the ninja-from-the-mountain. It's more a marketing term than a name for a teacher and implies that the material he/she has to teach is the secret true stuff that will defeat packs of zombies and crazed swordsmen and enable those initiated into the secret knowledge to bend railroad ties. Given that most martial artists have no true clue what to do in a dangerous situation, the claim of mastership is empty.

Third, Most masters are or were self proclaimed. Their claims, of course, are false, lies perpetrated to deceive the gullible. Moreover the sheer egotism of the claim is distasteful if not downright disgusting.

Because of the considerable amount of negative contemporary cultural baggage attached to the title "master," our movement is better served if we stay away from it.

[Joel Norman]

With this idea of wondering what makes a master, I have a slightly tangential question. I have sometimes wondered what would have stopped a false master (a clown-fighter or dance-fighter, whatever) from writing a fechtbuch? If we were to find such a manual, how would we know that the author was a false master? Wouldn't we end up just supposing that the false master must mean something that we just don't understand yet?
I'm not saying that I think there are any false masters anyone is trying to study right now. I just wonder sometimes.