Trait's of a fighter

[s_taillebois]

M. Norwood, good point. From the perspective of sparring and other activities, it does have some commonality with the original 'swordsmen'. But there obviously has to be the point of removal from the context of killing. And at that point, the discussion goes well beyond a fencing context, of any kind.
One idea concerning the original swordsmen. Although they obviously were proficient fighters...they did have some cultural limitations on their use of weapons and violence, as weak as these proscriptions may have been.
The medieval church certainly tried to limit the days on which judicial or military combat was appropriate. Also, it wasn't uncommon for the lower aristocracy to have their lords put into writing the number of days they were expected to hold out on sieges, before they could honorably surrender/escape. And on occasions those who did so, were allowed to leave a battlefield intact by the enemies. (Saladin did this several times).
Plus the obsession with ransoms played a limiting factor...at least with the nobility. In that regard, some of the fighting may have been intended to disable or stun rather than kill. Somewhat similar to the situation with the Jaguar/Eagle/Hummingbird warriors in the Aztec empire...although obviously the fate of hostages was a little different.

[jeremy pace]

I think "Mastery" is a relative term. We coin it a little different in this modern era than what i think was meant by the title. Can you truly master anything? No, we evolve our skills just as we evolve ourselves. But to be the true exemplar of virtue of the sword dont you need all of these things? To be teaching centuries after you were buried with the very tool you sought to teach, this is mastery. Can we achieve that? Well, i think we all have a long way to go in that evolution and not being faced with the "murder stroke" is a (for lack of better) setback we may not be able to overcome. But will i give up for that goal? Isnt that what we all want? To revive an art lost and pass it on? And who would be the greater masters then..... the ones who invented it or the ones who dug it from the grave and revived it into a world where people have a hard time crediting its necessity and validity? To achieve this we will need all these traits. Or some of us will.

On a different note, good luck man. I served usmc for 4 years. Field Arty. Keep your head down and your chin up.

[s_taillebois]

Or mayhaps the ones who revived it, and could use it for building character, or strength, without the unpleasent necessities forced upon the originators.
Good point M. Pace. And seems to be a developing trend in this country...seems to be several organizations using western fencing to teach character to children.

[jeremy pace]

I believe it is our heritage, and birthright. How can you take away something people have spent thousands of years cultivating and refining in the matter of a few centuries and not see an impact on their culture? Can you imagine the different ema just disappearing because they had no more "practical" reason for them? How would that change the society they live in?

[s_taillebois]

M. Pace, without doubt you are correct in the heritage aspect. To some degree, historical fencing is a type of mythology through which the useable aspects of the original fechtbuchs can be filtered. The primary difference between ARMA and like organizations and the Renn. faire contingent, is probably discipline. Essentially the difference resides in knowing that learning these sources can be physically and mentally arduous...its work. Theatrical role playing much less so.
About the only arena wherein I'd have some reservations...concerning the discussion at hand...is that we do need to be careful in differentiating sparring with 'intent' from actual fighting (nee combat). In large part, the social context (and mindset) which went along with say, the hundred years war, is a very different place from sparring.
In that regard, and with this equipment...we are not what they were, and good that we need not be so. For example, I do this in part to honour and mayhaps understand my ancestors...so some lingering aire of the past does last...but it does so with a softer voice, gentled by the centuries passing. As such, we can learn and respect that tradition, without having to presume we can fully comprehend the smoke, ash and blood that came with it in its first manifestation.

[Scott Richards]

If I had to pick just one of these traits, my personal opinion would be that of daring. There is no endeavor in which the possibility for failure is high -- sport, war, personal combat -- that the ability to be daring and take chances is not rewarded. No swordsman was ever able to achieve a level of greatness, or even of mediocrity, by meekly hiding in defensive moves.

That being said, I also believe the counterpoise of caution is important, because no sword fighter was ever able to be successful when acting foolishly or rushing into combat. I also think knowledge, wisdom, and reason would round put my own personal top five.

Scott