The ARMA and everyone else.

[Craig Peters]

Mr. Peters,

I do not "title myself" but do hold such qualification. That is Master-at-Arms, or Maestro, which is an accurate and granted title indicative of my chosen profession in Life - Teacher.
This is not proudly paraded or flaunted. You may note that I sign simply with my name.

As for my proficiency in teaching or ability, if you doubt it, test it.

A man may be measured and known not by his claims or titles, but by his proficiency and abilities. A wise man knows this of any other before judging him.

I do hold a title but make no claims, and can only leave it to others to pass judgement on my professional proficiency and abilities either knowingly or unknowingly.

If you are interested enough to form an educated opinion of my teaching and martial abilities, you are welcome to meet with me in Edinburgh at my Academy or at any workshops I may be teaching.

Master at Arms is a title which is earned. It is not simply an adjective that describes your profession. "HEMA instructor" or "Teacher of swordsmanship" describe your profession, but "Master of Arms" is something that needs to be earned, tested, and proved.

I will gladly test your ability the next time I am back in Scotland. But even if I do, it doesn't really mean anything. At best, it will give us an idea about who is more skilled, but that's meaningless without a wider context. As someone able to evaluate other people only based upon whatever knowledge, experience and skill that I possess, I cannot hope to accurately gauge whether you would have warranted that title in the historical context in which those arts came from. In other words, I have no knowledge of the skill of specific medieval and early modern masters by which I can compare and evaluate you. So really, the whole exercise is meaningless save for determining which of us has more skill.

The point here is that no one- and I mean no one- is qualified to judge someone as worthy of the title of Master of Arms or Maestro. None of us having any standard to judge it against save by our own interpretations and reconstructions of historic European martial arts, as flawed or accurate as they may be. We can make judgments about skill, (but only from within the context of our reconstruction), and that certainly isn't enough to know if someone warrants the title of "master" or not. There may very well be individuals in the HEMA community who would have been considered "masters" had they lived in the medieval or early modern era. But without some way to evaluate them beyond our current abilities, no one has a right to use that title.

[Sam Nankivell]

Sam,

Yes it would be very nice I suppose if we could all have one big philosophical group hug, but it's not very likely. Most scholars in this subject are very passionate about what they believe, how they train, etc. and there are many different opinions out there. I myself have nothing personal against anyone in the "WMA community" but I will not compromise my core beliefs on the subject or agree with something I think is crap simply to get along or make friends. If I think you are wrong, I'll tell you so. If you convince me that I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge it, learn from it, and move on. The debate and disagreements are often how we learn and increase our knowledge.

I have nothing against debate, the only problem is that most people are quite defensive about their core beliefs. This makes debate get quite heated and often quite personal with constant ad hominem statements being issued, such as whether a person has a "right" to make certain statements. It would be much more enjoyable if many of the debates I see were based more on reasoning and evidence than credentials.

As a novice in the community, I feel that I have every right to question anything and point out anything that I believe is wrong. If I am proven wrong then I can simply shut up (which is easy since I am a novice and therefore have no "reputation" to protect), or hopefully make others realize their faults.

If you are an experienced person or an instructor then debate becomes quite stressful if you use credentials, since you put your reputation on the line which means you feel an absolute need to win no matter what turns out to be true.

Frankly, I have had a pretty good experience in this community so far. Most people I have spoken to are fairly logical and most experienced people can explain to be exactly why something works or does not work (and in one case with my local --not related to ARMA-- group, admitted himself to be wrong and even thanked me!) Thankfully, most of ARMA seems to be like this.

I am just saying that we need to stop building our egos as "experts" and keep on being students.

That previous post was just me venting my frustration at all the politics of the community. Fortunately, there aren't many.

[Sam Nankivell]

If you don't mind my curiosity Mr. MacDonald: who entitled you master, and in what specific type of fencing? Also, I believe there is a distinction between Teacher and Master. A Teacher teaches the subject, a Master has mastered the subject. I am qualified to teach neophytes, but I am not called a Master.

If it bothers you that they have named themselves master, we can both just make up our own organizations.

Then I will bestow upon you the title of "master". And you can reciprocate. And then we can grant it to anyone that will defend us doing so.

As a matter of fact, my G-G-G-Grandfather was High Potentate of the Grand Order of Fight Monkeys.

The G.O.F.M. had sword techniques that went back to the Dark Ages... beating those poor organizations that can only trace themselves back to the Medieval.

All this is true. And I can verify it.

However, the secret papers that have been passed down to me are currently buried in a remote region of South America, and I am sworn to fight to the death anyone else that sees them... or that I divulge the secrets to... or that asks too many pesky questions.

As the current High Potentate ( which beats titles such as the lowly "fight master", don't you know) I am however authorized to do this:

I grant all ARMA members, that have been with the organization for a period of longer than 3 (three) years, and that regularly spar, in that people that actually fight are more proficient than those that only dance and talk about fighting, the title of Grand Master of G.O.F.M. in the Medieval Fighting Arts, Specifically of Weapons that have Sharp and Poking bits about them.

If anyone want it, I can email you a certificate suitable for printing out, and taping to your wall.

From now on, if they wish, ARMA members can interact with other Masters of living lineage medieval sword arts, on an equal, if not superior, footing.

We need shirts of this.

We absolutely need shirts of this.

...Possibly mugs too.

[Paul Macdonald]

Mr. Nankivell,

Your comments are not altogether naieve but simply call for understanding here, and I thankyou for your rational input on this thread.

I am more than aware that my professional character, credentials and abilities (among those of other professionals) are not only being called into question here, but are subject to pre-existing prejudices that cast all our words into immediate doubt according to those whose minds are blinkered against us.

I really now feel on this forum that it matters not how reasonably I phrase my statements and words, but that they shall be subject to an immediate unthinking barrage of "Liar!" and "False Prophet!" simply because I choose not to wear a red shirt and carry an earned qualification and title of apparently forbidden nature.

With such unwillingness to accept words of reason, or simply to first listen, is it any wonder that this thread is entitled "ARMA...and everyone else?"


Mr. Anderson,

I can only agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. I likewise am careful not to compromise my own knowledge and also careful who I associate myself and my Academy with.

You are also right that debate and disagreements increase knowledge, but it is the willingness to discover and accept the Truth of any matter that give us Wisdom.


Mr. Dillon,

You have turned attentions towards a specific of relevancy, that of the meaning of the term master.

Yes, I did say that it simply meant teacher, but only as a literal single-word translation of the original terms in European language.

In terms of martial Arts, it refers to a teacher that posesses the neccessary skills and ability to impart knowledge and practice in the Art to others, at all levels. From the lowest to the highest.

That is, from first principles through to the most esoteric knowledge. An artist with knowledge and ability in a Complete Art and with the neccessary temperament and nature to clearly transmit such.

I feel that such explanations should not be neccessary on this or any other forum were it not but for the preconditioned notions so obvious here that suggest different ideas as to what master means.

I do not agree that this title is "up for grabs", as it does mean something very real, it still stands as a serious professional qualification, and that title can still be earned in this World today by a few rare paths only, and in the traditional manner no less.

I shall not rise on this forum to specify names, salles or organisations, as any serious student intent on not only knowing but undertaking this path should be posessed of sense and fortitude enough to find their own way towards it.


Mr. Peters,

I agree as I have previously stated, that Master-at-Arms is a title earned.

You present opinion of this title about "None of us having any standard to judge it against"

The Art is the standard. And the Art has never left us.

I and other masters have dedicated our very Lives to maintain and further our own standards and intergrity with respect and regard to the Art.

I can but tell you, the standards are there.


Mr. Welch,

If Fight Monkeys can drink, count me in.


Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[Michael Olsen]

Hello,

For anyone curious as to the background or qualifications of Paul McDonald, I believe he has a webpage here: http://www.historicalfencing.org/Macdon ... master.htm

Specifically to answer the question as to his accreditation to Maestro (Master at Arms), the webpage states:

In 1999, after more than four years of intensive study, Maestro Macdonald received his Master-at-Arms certification from FISAS.

The FISAS is the Italian Ancient and Historical Federation whose website is located here: (I hope you can read Italian)
http://www.scherma-antica.org/

If I have somehow managed to get information on the wrong Paul McDonald, or misinformation on the correct Paul McDonald please accept my apologies in advance.

[Nathan Dexter]

Mr. Macdonald, You claim that the Masters of the art of Defence, that is the art of fighting, have a living lineage to the arts of the german masters. Well quite frankly, this claim is absurd. First, you are using a completely different type of weapon. (if you can even call fencing "blades" weapons.) Second, If you are talking about the Italian rapier masters, the styles are very different; in that with the rapier, you are trying to kill someone, where as with a fencing blade you are trying to touch them. Sure, you are a master of your art, but you are certainly not a master of any medieval martial art.

[Shane Smith]

Mr. Peters,

I agree as I have previously stated, that Master-at-Arms is a title earned.

You present opinion of this title about "None of us having any standard to judge it against"

The Art is the standard. And the Art has never left us.

I and other masters have dedicated our very Lives to maintain and further our own standards and intergrity with respect and regard to the Art.

I can but tell you, the standards are there.



Macdonald

Paul,

I don't know you well enough from your writings to comment on your character and I've never seen you fence. That being so, I am unqualified to comment on either of those matters.

I do know well enough that implying that the standards that a man and his fellows have established for themselves concerning these arts as they understand them does not a Universally accepted Master of early Historical European methods make. Some have apparently set a template for themselves and that's all to the good; however, that no-one outside that circle of adherents accepts their claim to Masterhood thrice-removed should be no real surprise to any thinking man. When you set the standard of Masterhood of any dead discipline arbitrarily for yourself, and others agree to acknowledge you as you do them even though no man among them be qualified to bestow such a lofty title, the achievement of excellence therein is no undue hardship. If I set the standard based upon my own limited understanding, it would be a small wonder if I could not attain it...such is the nature of man after all. Still,where there are none competent to judge mastery when they see it, there can be no Master out of it.

If six modern men agree among themselves that one of them is to be named the modern-day Master Architect of the science of building pyramids, yet he was never present for the building of one, nor was he even part of a teacher to student lineage going back any further than the late 19th century-much less to the time of the building, we'd all have a good laugh in spite of the fact that we may admire their enthusiasm. Still, it would be obvious to all but the men involved perhaps, that they are doing no more than best-guessing and educated guessing-again, noble things to be sure, but certainly not a mandate to be the "Master" on the subject. These men are researchers, not Masters- having never attained the completed whole of the work with their own hands. Indeed, their own thoughts on the matter are even subject to change in the light of new discoveries. No man can claim mastery in the field when even the basics are up for debate.

I think that if you are doing as the rest of us are in your research; ie studiously studying the source-texts, fencing and applying what you learn in your own earnest search for the truth of these arts and their origins, you are no better nor worse than any of your fellow Swordsmen no matter what group claims them. We are all students and all teachers at need. None of us are entitled to claim uncontestable provenance concerning these arts because none of us are qualified. The living lineage of our Art is not there. Masters of these Arts are not there in our time. Sincere and competent students of the sword are all we can hope to be at this time of earnest re-discovery now under way. Best regards.

[Shane Smith]

Last warning. Nonproductive and non-scholarly posts will be deleted and repeat offenders banned. If you cannot express yourself articulately and in a civil manner, do not post.

[Francisco Uribe]

That is because such title and professional qualifications have been personally granted and awarded after years of study, research and practice for a Lifetime of service and dedication towards the Art.


In short, that title is Earned.
Macdonald

As you said sir, the title is granted by a competent body.
Could you tell me in front of what competent body have you, or any of the IMAF members demonstrated, the required level of skill to be granted the title of maestro?

Can you tell me what body of masters certified that any of the so called IMAF masters have master-level skills in any of the medieval or Rennaisance weapons?
Certainly they would be much more qualified than you or Mr. Martinez, or anybody else for that matter, to teach real medieval and rennaisance fighting skills.

Or is such a select groups that, coincidentally, is only known by IMAF members?

Francisco Uribe
ARMA Lansing
ARMA Chile

[JeffGentry]

M. Gentry. 'Gentry' in this case was meant in a general sense for all those posting on this topic. Not a specific reference to your name, however if it offended apologies for such...

Will have to come up with another equivalent...brethren perhaps.

On other matters, strange that a certain aspect of secondary machismo has intruded into the conversation. The issue of whether or not one has the anatomy (of a type not particularly relevent in this particular situation) to confront M. Martinez , seems a bit strange. Perhaps that's where the trouble arises when the status of 'master' is implied. Exalted status often brings on over reactions that may not be warranted.
Anyway, one of the aspects historically expected from learning the art of the sword, was restraint in conduct. "Learn the art that dignifies you" by Liechtenauer, for example, carries more than one meaning.

OHHHHHH ok i wasn't offended per say, Just wondered how i got drug in, I am not used to seeing that word used in that manner, so it took me by surprise.

Jeff

[Matthew_Anderson]

Hello,

For anyone curious as to the background or qualifications of Paul McDonald, I believe he has a webpage here: http://www.historicalfencing.org/Macdon ... master.htm

Specifically to answer the question as to his accreditation to Maestro (Master at Arms), the webpage states:

In 1999, after more than four years of intensive study, Maestro Macdonald received his Master-at-Arms certification from FISAS.

The FISAS is the Italian Ancient and Historical Federation whose website is located here: (I hope you can read Italian)
http://www.scherma-antica.org/

If I have somehow managed to get information on the wrong Paul McDonald, or misinformation on the correct Paul McDonald please accept my apologies in advance.

Wow, only four years to become a Master at Arms? I guess I'm a slow learner

[Randall Pleasant]

Mr. Nankivell,

Your comments are not altogether naieve but simply call for understanding here, and I thankyou for your rational input on this thread.

It is good for you to acknowledge Mr. Nankivells rational input. However, in doing so you seem to suggest that the members of ARMA on this thread are not being rational - please correct me if I have mis-understood you. I think my fellow ARMA members and myself are being very rational in asking that any claim to a living tradition to an actual rapier and longsword master be backed up with clear and verifiable proof. Got proof?

I really now feel on this forum that it matters not how reasonably I phrase my statements and words, but that they shall be subject to an immediate unthinking barrage of "Liar!" and "False Prophet!" simply because I choose not to wear a red shirt and carry an earned qualification and title of apparently forbidden nature.

You are right, it does not matter how reasonable you phrase your statements. Why? Because regardless of who makes them statements (ie. claims) are not proof. Show me clear and verifiable proof of a living tradition back to an actual rapier and/or longsword master and I will become a believer. Got proof?

With such unwillingness to accept words of reason, or simply to first listen, is it any wonder that this thread is entitled "ARMA...and everyone else?"

I do not speak for any of my fellow ARMA scholars but I do think many share my feelings on these matters. I do listen. I listen very very close. But I do not except bare words as proof, regardless of how reasonable those words may sound on the surface. Regardless of how resaonable words are used to make a claim, that claim must still be backed up with proof. Got proof?

I am very thankful that ARMA is not like everyone else!

[Corey Roberts]

I find it interesting, that throughout the article he puts Bruce Lee on such a pedestal, and puts down "self-made men" but Bruce Lee was the exact sort of"self-made man" he seems to have such contempt for. As he possessed no formal ranking in any martial art form asian or otherwise. Another item in the article that I thought showed clearly his general lack of comprehension of historical realites was his contempt for individuals who "... indulge in uncontrolled wrestling techniques, blows with the fist, open hand chops, elbow strikes, forearm strikes, and kicks to the knees or groin that are uncharacteristic of the weapon they are using." Even a brief perusal of historical manuals will quickly reveal that wrestling techniques and grappling were an integral part of the historical systems. Anyone who doubts this can read this article: http://www.thearma.org/essays/G&WinRF.htm


I suppose this fellow is conducting himself as a "real fencer" should and is merley resting his foot on the others knee, and kindly asking him for his weapon, rather than "perpetrating brutal acts"?

[JeremyDillon]

Mr. Dillon,

You have turned attentions towards a specific of relevancy, that of the meaning of the term master.

Yes, I did say that it simply meant teacher, but only as a literal single-word translation of the original terms in European language.

In terms of martial Arts, it refers to a teacher that posesses the neccessary skills and ability to impart knowledge and practice in the Art to others, at all levels. From the lowest to the highest.

That is, from first principles through to the most esoteric knowledge. An artist with knowledge and ability in a Complete Art and with the neccessary tem, perament and nature to clearly transmit such.

I feel that such explanations should not be neccessary on this or any other forum were it not but for the preconditioned notions so obvious here that suggest different ideas as to what master means.

I do not agree that this title is "up for grabs", as it does mean something very real, it still stands as a serious professional qualification, and that title can still be earned in this World today by a few rare paths only, and in the traditional manner no less.

I shall not rise on this forum to specify names, salles or organisations, as any serious student intent on not only knowing but undertaking this path should be posessed of sense and fortitude enough to find their own way towards it.

I can't help but add a bit of an ironical "oooAAAAooooooo" to the end of your mysterious final comment. I don't mean to be sarcastic or caustic but Mr. Macdonald, you can't honestly tell me that citing "a few rare paths" is an appropriate means of accreditation in a scholarly circle! This would be very much like me claiming a masters degree in theoretical physics and, when asked what graduate school I attended, replying "If you are worthy, some day you may find it." I would be very, very surprised if any of my fellow physicists would take anything I had to say about theoretical physics seriously! Mr. Smith raises a very good point in that all we can aspire to be at this point, in the realm of early historical european martial arts, are educated students of the history of these arts, but that's the best we can do.

[s_taillebois]

Concerning the contentions of M. McDonald and company, perhaps in their own manner they hold to some variant of the art that all here have regard.
The issue seems to be in the implications of the word meastro or master, whatever language one choses to place it. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the use of that title does inevietably bring questions.
Ultimately, however, perhaps the desire to attach too much to that title might be inappropriate, by whoever might apply it, whatever their motivations. As serious as the study of the sword arts might be taken by all concerned....for those alive today the applications of that art are not, and with good fortune, cannot be the same as those whom we study. Perhaps they, those long passed, who had to live or die by the arts of the sword, are the only souls who should be consistently referred to as 'the' masters.
Other rankings do have a place, but to extend these too far brings too many disturbing questions as to motivations. Hence the heated debates which result, even if those motivations might be honorable.