Does one size truly fit all?

[Shane Smith]

When one examines the various works left to us by the Masters of medieval and renaissance Europe, one can't help but notice that in spite of many obvious similarities,there are also substantial differences between the "styles" of the various Masters themselves.

This raises an interesting point in my mind. Just WHY did the Masters teach differently(if not contrarily) from one-another? Could the differences in temperment and physical attributes inherent to these Masters be THE prime reason for the diversity of opinion and technical application shown in the Manuals?

With that prerequisite in mind, does it then follow that modern Swordsmen with temperments and physical particulars contrary to the particular Master that they are trying to emulate, are doomed to less than 100 percent success if they are constantly attempting to pour themselves into the mold of a man and an art that just doesn't quite fit them?

Would anyone argue that Fiore, Talhoffer and the other Masters we are following after, formed their own Arts in a vacuum and that they did not take techniques from sources outside their own foundational learnings that they found to be suitable for their own use and incorporate those into their own individual "Styles"? If not, would this help us explain why there are so many modern-day Swordsmen that adopt and adapt concepts and techniques from the various Masters that seem suit their own attributes? Further, could this ability to discern and incorporate for ones self what is martially practical for you as an individual be what actually seperates a "Martial Arts Student" from a "Martial Artist"? Where is the line between Martial Practicality and Historical Accuracy to be drawn in this equation or can the two concepts be said to be parts of the whole? Tough questions indeed...

[Guest]

I think the main point here is the political and cultural reality of ancient Europe. It was nowhere a coherent or unique reality in any aspect of it's existence (frankly it is not even now). The masters were different people living indifferent places and different ages ( a few decads count a lot) and did not think in a similar manner. More, often rivalry was a great motivation for european regions and the appearently same thing, like longsword fencing, was used for different purposes, battle, jousts, duels.
Seeing WMA mainly as a cultural fact it's imperative, to me, to recognize and reconstruct the single realities, it becomes easier using fine cooking as a metafor.
On the other hand generalizations are necessary for explaining thigs at first and introductory works have a lot of value. However one should not mix up styles in my opinion, it's like throwing fine cooked dishes in the same pot and recook them together. Fighting is a different story, one knows what he knows and just can't say: "I can't thrust this way because my previous cut was from another style".
Carlo