The ARMA and everyone else.

[Francisco Uribe]

Mr. Uribe,

I have here defended my credetials in manner enough.

What you have done, and keep doing, is saying that you have credentials, but you do not say who was your sanctioning body.

Defended credentials, you have not, since no credentials have been presented that can be defended.
So spare me the bad joke. I'm used to hard verifiable facts, you only produce empty words.
If you do not have the paperwork to prove what you state, and demosntrate that you were qualified by validated oficials, you have nothing.

You now appear to tell me about my "solid paper evidence.
You cannot, you do not, you're willing not."
You know me not.

And since I know you not, more the so important becomes the necesity that you are able to demostrate with proof your certifications. Speacially since producing papers is so easy.
I can proudly show my scholar credentials, why cannot you?
Please do not insult my intellect.

Paper evidence I have, but as some have here stated with respect to credentials, this is not enough, but ability proven by actions. I have chosen therefore to act and present plain and clear reasoning as to why and how such qualification is legitimate and honestly earned.

Since this is the first time we crossed, that will be mine to judge. If you can convince me you will have the fiercest supporter.

The mark of any reasonable man is the ability to first listen, then reason. I would that you could at least open yourself to listen to my words before attempting to shoot them down.

Yes, I've listen to everything that you have said. You proposed an ide (you being master) I say OK, what proof do you have of it?
I'm still waiting for you to show it. All you do is pretend offense and whine about my question.

This is the trhid time I ask you. Will you answer?

You claim not to be insinuating anything but also state that your "own personal inquires about this organization, turn out dirt and shadows."

Well, would you preffer my detailed conclusions regarding the ethics of this situation?

If you'd like me to be more direct, I could directly called thse 3 members liars, without any implication for the rest. Would that satisfy you?
Note that I'm not including yourself in that "situation", but now that you know... I will not hesitate to doubt of your personal ethics and call you accomplice and liar if you jst stand by and agree with this sort of behavior.
Of course this will not include to those valiant AEEA members that came out with this information, and do not wish to have a part on such a deception
There are no insinuations regarding to what I just said. As I did
I have no problem calling liars by what they are.
I pretty forecoming as will know.
By the way, if I were you I would not assume the level of rational thinking that I may be capable of. It is not good scholarship, just false good manners.

Now speaking candidly (with no insinuations),

Paul, we all know were you and your friends are coming from and where you wanna get. If you do not have the maturity to publicly accept that this is the wrong place for the sort of presentation, and you could do much better preaching to you chore.

Life's work... ja! you do not have a shred of paper written with any improvement to the craft, which coincidentally is required by the IMAF master level.

You are just embarrasing yourself. And it should ne the more painful that a guy like me is telling you this.
Do yourself a favor and.... well you know where I'm going with this.
Is this non insinuating enough?

For the fourth time.
Show your papers and credentials. Your words have no weight otherwise.
Is that simple. Show undeniable proof and the argument is yours.
Like that is going to happen.

[Sam Nankivell]

It seems gas keeps getting added to this small fire I lit a couple days ago.

I think we all need to cool down a bit.

Mr. Clements, I greatly respect you and your work, as do I respect ARMA as a whole. However, I think we need to be a little more civil when dealing with these "maestros", after all, if we are to be better men, we should act like it and try to be above insults.

I understand you have put up with plenty of crap in the past from the so-titled "maestros" (I have read both Medieval and Renaissance Swordsmanship, where you make this quite evident) and are quite frustrated with certain debates that simply won't die, but I think that it would do a service to ARMA and the rest of the community if we could just tone down our animosity and try and be more civil in this matter. Right now, all we are going to do is go home with one more enemy and a pyrrhic victory. If we act a bit calmer and more welcoming (like ARMA acts for most of the people who are interested in this art), perhaps we can actually make progress through this discussion. Crushing someone online and making one more enemy is not as good as convincing someone and having one more ally.

So please, and I do mean this with the utmost respect to you, just tone down your anger towards Mr. MacDonald and the IMAF in general. After all, if you are the better man, then you should be above such things.

[Mark Driggs]

Mr. Driggs and Cartier,

My thanks for your support towards the battle of legislation in Scotland, which is still unfinished business.

I would with reference to comments of Mr. Driggs point out that not all masters killed regularly, if at all ever, with the Sword.

That we have qualified as such does not oblige us to maintain a professional kill tally, more´s the pity
Macdonald

What, you don't make notches into your hilt to keep track?

Yes, I agree that the fechtmeisters of old need not have killed people to have obtained mastery of the sword (or any weapon for that matter). Yet, they would have been able to have done so had the circumstances required it.

[Craig Peters]

Paul,

You keep claiming that "the Art never left us". But what on earth does that mean? Does that mean that there's some ethereal aspect of long sword and rapier fighting which has been transmitted through Baroque and sport fencing which enables us to claim "mastery" over these skills? It's undeniable that sport fencing contains some skills that cross over to the use of the rapier and long sword, but these are few and far between. By that line of reasoning, I could claim that it's possible to learn the art of the long sword through practicing with Japanese martial arts and a katana.

And if the "art never left us" then why on earth are there so many individuals who are ignorant about the nature of medieval and early modern fighting out there. Moreover, how on earth can anyone claim mastery in these skills when they're not being used any more and there is no competent body in existence to assess an individual's proficiency in them? This is a silly argument, and I'm surprised that you'd even offer it in support of your claims.

[s_taillebois]

And if one had notched a 'kill tally', eventually it would have become expensive and embarassing...
That's one of the many areas where, mayhaps, trying to directly link oneself to some original master becomes very questionable. They had a whole set of social conventions in place to mitigate for untoward applications of violence, or for that matter, undeserved or excessive pride. It's not very likely that many who today claim 'master', have been compelled to follow the full range of traditions once associated with that condition. It seems unlikely that a penitents shift and the humbling procession through the common, swords left at altars or even such as "Long Meg" are part and whole of the modern affectations of 'master'. These conventions are long out of use, and perhaps it would be better to avoid claiming 'master' ; because the full gamut of what the original masters were expected to do, and what was expected when they failed, cannot be experienced. And to resurrect the affectations without the subtleties, is at best role playing, and at worst an insult to those who once lived by and valued these traditions. Traditions of which we cannot now fully know, as some are lost, and those which survive are still percieved through what we are now, not as they once were. That's the strength of studying from old fechtbuchs/manuals, because at least the written word and picture retain some clarity through passing centuries.
It would seem to be difficult enough to resurrect this art, without the added complexities of pretense.

[Matthew_Anderson]

Mr. Macdonald, I really think this thread has ceased to be useful or enlightening in any way. Apparently you are not going to answer any direct questions about your training, qualifications, lineage etc. with clear, complete answers and instead prefer to simply spout flowery philosophical prose, obfuscate, and invite us to your salle in Scotland. Thanks anyway, I'll pass.

[Nathan Dexter]

Mr. Dexter,

You seem sure in your words, but I am quite unsure as to what you are implying.

I have not claimed that the Masters have a living lineage to the medieval German masters. There are a few alone who can claim lineage back to the 18th century, let alone the 15th-16th masters that I can only assume you refer to.

What I do say is that Masters today profess the Art from its very foundations, and that the Art has never left us.

What modern marvels have changed that Art over time? Not one.

The point that many here seem to have missed thus far is that the principles of the Art are drawn from and based upon principles of Nature.
Nature both physical and metaphysical, that have predated mankind, remain unchanged today and shall exist for all time.

And if it exists....it can be known. If it can be known, it can be understood, if understood, applied, and if one is further posessed of the ability to clearly transmit this knowledge and understanding in practice to others willing to learn, then these are the particular requirements of the fencing master with regard to the Art of Defence, the Very same today as it ever has been.

If there are few who can claim lineage back to the 18th century, is this some kind of secret art that only the few can be allowed to know? And if they can't trace it that far, how can you claim a lineage in a legitemate killing art.

Also, there can be no one foundation for a fighting style that has taken many different forms for very specific tasks.

I also don't think you need to bring a philosophical aspect to this discusion, and I don't quite understand what you mean by this.

I don't believe there is anything I stated indirectly.

[Paul Macdonald]

Mr. Uribe,

If the previous posts you had followed, you would find that Mr. Olsen has already provided this information on page 3 of this thread.

This is the second time that you have stated that I have no credentials to prove. You speak as if you know my background and personal artifacts more surely than I!

You have also spoken of me producing "empty words" and my very point is that a piece of paper stating that you have been recognised and certified as skilled at any level is just that, empty words, the proof of present ability is far more important.

It is easy to attain anything, but the real test is in maintaining that and building upon it. Therein lies the only real evidence that a man is worthy of a title, and this is far more important to know than simply knowing that he got there in the first place.

I can also tell you that I hold another piece of paper, a solo pilots licence, but that qualification and title is also likewise nothing without the ongoing experience of maintaining my flying hours and building upon my real abilities as a qualified pilot.

The same stands true for my fencing master certification, what is more important to the Art and community right now are my abilities right now, not how I got here.
In any case, I am teaching elsewhere in Europe right now and have no direct access to my piece of paper for some days.

I do not insult your intellect but ask that you might check available information to be found within this thread and be open minded enough not judge a man as having nothing of anything when you do not know him.

Another example of your judgement has here been evident upon suggesting that because I have presented not "a shred of paper written with any improvement to the craft".
I might assume you mean essays on the Art and such writings? (do correct me if I am wrong and disregard the following words if so).

The main reason that such lack of paper musings are forthcoming from myself is that I choose to serve the Art in the most direct manner in my Life by offering my services in instruction and hands-on craftsmanship first.
Simply put, I am too busy teaching and making upon a daily basis to write in service of "the community". My dedicated students come first.

Does this make me less credible as a teacher, because I choose to teach instead of write?

Again you press me for ze papers and credentials! I feel as though I am here regularly accosted by some demanding SS officer when all I want to do is get to the pub

Again, paper proof is no neccessary proof of present abilities and worthiness of the title itself. This is the simple point that I am attempting to make clear here.


Mr Driggs,

Notches in my hilt?

Each pleat of my kilt is for a man I have dropped Sir.
And I own many kilts!

Yes, the masters of auld had exactly those abilities. So it should be with any master today, or any swordsman trained and skilled enough in principles of the Art.


Mr. Peters,

In answer to your questions, I firstly refer to my earlier words -

That the principles of the Art are drawn from and based upon principles of Nature.
Nature both physical and metaphysical, that have predated mankind, remain unchanged today and shall exist for all time.

And if it exists....it can be known. If it can be known, it can be understood, if understood, applied, and if one is further posessed of the ability to clearly transmit this knowledge and understanding in practice to others willing to learn, then these are the particular requirements of the fencing master with regard to the Art of Defence, the Very same today as it ever has been.

That is what "the Art never left us" means.

It is not a matter of backtracking in teachniques and principles at all, as sport-fencing now bears no relation at all to martial swordsmanship (as many here know), but returning to the historical Source of principles today.

In answer to your second concerns, there are many ignorant about the nature of medieval and early modern fighting out there as ther are many that simply focus on other aspects of the Art besides the fundamental or deeper ones.

Quite simply, many focus upon the weapons alone. The weapon is one thing, but simply the tool with which to express the Art of Defence. The Art is based upon the sentient being behind the blade being able to judge the situation, placement and intentions in front of them accurately enough to swiftly overcome that.

In short, man overcomes man, by the sword, but using much more than that alone. The Art obliges us to pay attention to universal and core elements existing within our own beings and also to recognise these within the man in front. Fencing is Truly a study of human nature, of your opponents, but more importantly, your own.

The study of human nature is still a useful one today, as it teaches us about ourselves directly, about the Truth of our actions and recognising that in others, controlling and conditioning our physical flexibility and emotional balance.

Thus, the same lessons about ourselves can be learned via the Art today, as much as they were centuries ago. We just don´t routinely carry or employ the tools anymore, more´s the pity


Mr. Taillebois,

Long Meg? You´ve got me there. What´s the meaning?

You present a good insight as to the more subtle social conventions required of the master and students historically.
I would say that while modern social conventions and our surroundings may have changed, we can still learn the same lessons from fencing as were learned centuries ago, of awareness, timing of actions, clarity of movement and response, in short, communication, the essence of the Art.

These things are still helpful today in all levels of society if we wish to overcome hardships and problems and further ourselves.

Let us have no pretense, but do these things.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[s_taillebois]

M. MacDonald

Long Meg of Westminster, alive during the reign of Henry VIIIth. Servant at an Inn, apparently very proficient at staff, sword and buckler and rapier. Her mistress seems to have thought it entertaining to send her after customers who didn't pay properly. Nobility or otherwise, she seems to have been able to beat them, at prizes or otherwise. She also dressed up in male attire and beat a Castillan noble who had become besotted with her, and for whom she had no reciprocal interest. The English in the area seemed to enjoy setting her after foreigners and others who boasted too much of their prowess.
Many of the stories about her might be legends, but she seems to have been a real person.
The most accessible mentions of her are probably somewhere on the web, or better in M. Terry Brown's writing on the traditions of English fencing.

[Francisco Uribe]

I can see that you're simply not up to the request.
Not that you ever have before.
I stated some very simple questions that you are not willing to answer.
Using cheap rethoric to avoid the matter, only reflects bad on you.
I've seen college students presenting more elaborate excuses, and at least they use their own words to justify themselves, instead of citing others to come to their defense.
Stop playing this ridiculous ping pong of giving tiny twists to whatever whoever said.


Fifth time

What governing body recognized your mastery of rennaisansce and medieval fighting skills at a master at arms level?

If it was not in medieval and renaisance, but so loosely as in fencing... what was this body again?

Will you answer?

The same stands true for my fencing master certification, what is more important to the Art and community right now are my abilities right now, not how I got here.

Nonsense, it is important to everybody, especially to you, since you're the one fighting against all odds to establish your "mastery" as a fact.
It would be silly of me to disregard this particular point as something with no importance.
Certainly you do care a LOT about it.

Your attitude of giving importance to this matter when is suitable and useful to you is scholarly repugnant.
I'm appaled that you certainly teach the same ethics to your students.
You certainly do not have a real grasp about what the word maestro implies.

At this point I do not need more information to continue developing an opinion of your person, then here is no point in presenting you with questions that you childishly refuse to answer. Specially since just avoid the subject with lame excuses.

This has been the sorriest example of scholarly display I've seen in ages.
Were this a qualyfying exam, you wouldnt make it as PhD candidate.

I have only one question for you. For anything but the answer do not bother to reply.

Who was the governing body that grant your master license?

You have the last words.


PS: If you sign as "Truly yours" you could at leat honor that last line don't you think? I know I do mine.

El increible facedor de entuertos.

[JeremyDillon]

Mr. Uribe,

That the principles of the Art are drawn from and based upon principles of Nature.
Nature both physical and metaphysical, that have predated mankind, remain unchanged today and shall exist for all time.

And if it exists....it can be known. If it can be known, it can be understood, if understood, applied, and if one is further posessed of the ability to clearly transmit this knowledge and understanding in practice to others willing to learn, then these are the particular requirements of the fencing master with regard to the Art of Defence, the Very same today as it ever has been.


Macdonald

Mr. Macdonald, I'm afraid this is it for me, as soon as the word metaphysical enters into a discussion, it ceases to be one of rational, empirical thought. It's a shame, I had yet to encounter this kind of pseudo-religious mysticism in the field of HEMA. As a student of science, I've had more than enough experience with this kind of vauge, non-information and I am sorely, sorely disappointed. It's clear to me now that the problem is no longer accreditation, but that we are talking about totally different subjects. The subject of ARMA's study, and the study of legitimate historical recreationists of all kinds, is the empirical, rational, educated exploration of historical techniques and ideas through research and evidence. Your subject of study appears to be discerning these techniques through studies of metaphysics and "Nature" (whatever that means). I'm afraid that this discussion was over before it began, and I for one don't have much interest in continuing it. Thank you for the discussion Mr. Macdonald, I wish it could have been more constructive.

[Craig Peters]

So Paul, if this art is one that is drawn from and based upon the principles of Nature, and so forth, as you claim, then what is to stop anyone from calling themselves a master?

I think I see what you're trying to say here- at one point, medieval and early modern people had to figure it out for themselves, and theoretically we can too. The problem is that there are a number of things restricting us from being able to fully judge techniques, one of which being that we cannot legally engage in ernst fechten.

Even accepting all this is the case, we still need to have some sort of standard by which several people can test someone and establish them as worthy of the rank of master. Considering that we're all still figuring things out as we go, I do not see that there is anyone who is qualified to make that judgment, much less a group of people.

[Sam Nankivell]

Mr. Uribe,

That the principles of the Art are drawn from and based upon principles of Nature.
Nature both physical and metaphysical, that have predated mankind, remain unchanged today and shall exist for all time.

And if it exists....it can be known. If it can be known, it can be understood, if understood, applied, and if one is further posessed of the ability to clearly transmit this knowledge and understanding in practice to others willing to learn, then these are the particular requirements of the fencing master with regard to the Art of Defence, the Very same today as it ever has been.


Macdonald

Mr. Macdonald, I'm afraid this is it for me, as soon as the word metaphysical enters into a discussion, it ceases to be one of rational, empirical thought. It's a shame, I had yet to encounter this kind of pseudo-religious mysticism in the field of HEMA. As a student of science, I've had more than enough experience with this kind of vauge, non-information and I am sorely, sorely disappointed. It's clear to me now that the problem is no longer accreditation, but that we are talking about totally different subjects. The subject of ARMA's study, and the study of legitimate historical recreationists of all kinds, is the empirical, rational, educated exploration of historical techniques and ideas through research and evidence. Your subject of study appears to be discerning these techniques through studies of metaphysics and "Nature" (whatever that means). I'm afraid that this discussion was over before it began, and I for one don't have much interest in continuing it. Thank you for the discussion Mr. Macdonald, I wish it could have been more constructive.

Mr. Macdonald: I have been monitering both ARMA's arguments and your arguments, both you and ARMA have been exchanging some very good points. However, I am afraid this is quite a good point which Mr. Dillon makes against your argument. As scholars of fencing, we should be concerned with one thing: how to effectively defend oneself and kill others with melee weaponry. Any matter of metaphysics should take backseat to this. I myself became interested in European martial arts because it is rational and practical. Unlike some (in my experience, most) Asian martial arts, it is not concerned with "self-improvement" or other such "higher" concepts, just with survival and victory.

In this matter, I certainly side with ARMA.

So Paul, if this art is one that is drawn from and based upon the principles of Nature, and so forth, as you claim, then what is to stop anyone from calling themselves a master?

I think I see what you're trying to say here- at one point, medieval and early modern people had to figure it out for themselves, and theoretically we can too. The problem is that there are a number of things restricting us from being able to fully judge techniques, one of which being that we cannot legally engage in ernst fechten.

Even accepting all this is the case, we still need to have some sort of standard by which several people can test someone and establish them as worthy of the rank of master. Considering that we're all still figuring things out as we go, I do not see that there is anyone who is qualified to make that judgment, much less a group of people.

Mr. Peters also makes a good point about the practicality of such beliefs.

I am eagerly awaiting your response to these arguments.

[Mike Cartier]

see here is the problem for me with the word master or fechtmeister too for that matter.

In HEMA today we are all desperatly working to reverse the ridiculous image of our martial arts heritage by hollywood, the SCA, sport fencing and others who have marginalized our arts. When someone makes claims of being a master or a fechtmeister they are making a mockery of modern HEMA efforts.

whether this title is taken by the person of thier own account or gained by grouping together other like minded show wish to bestow titles on each other its Farcial and theatrical. I find it offensive to my love for HEMA to accept anyone calling themselves a master.

In fact I am also of the old Bruce Lee live of thinking that noone really has much cause to be czalling themselves master. Bruce himself never used it and Dan Inosanto also steadfastly refuses to use it even though he holds instructor level certifcations in well over 20 martial arts.

It serrves no purpose other than to inflate egos and give off false impressions which in turn make a mockery of modern HEMA work.

[Will Adamson]

I have tried to avoid this thread like the plague since about page two, but like any good crackhead I find myself now drawn to it.

Like many others here I get a rash in uncomfortable places when I hear metaphysics discussed in the same realm as martial arts. This understanding of human nature and the understanding of the human ability to move in time and space which I would rather call simply self awareness, is a by-product of martial arts training of just about any kind. It is not the goal. The goal is to learn to defend oneself from attack at the very least to avoid automatic capitulation, and at most to avoid victimhood entirely. This self awareness can also be achieved by practitioners in many sports, and through military training. Anything that plainly shows you what you cannot do is such an avenue. Golf is a good example.

On another note; I find it distressing to hear Mr. MacDonald's assertion that because he has this "self-awareness" and proficiency at "the Art" that he can somehow have a better understanding of the use of any long metal item. For example, my wife has a PhD in Biology. Her specific areas of study are plant molecular biology, genetics, and science writing. If I ever ask her a question about anatomy, physiology, botany, or any other area of biology, she tells me that it is not her field. That is called integrity! She lets it be known that she is not necessarily an authority in said field before making any statements regarding it.

Having spent several years studying a sportified asian style (TKD) under a WTF certified master, I can tell you that I find the whole concept of the rank of master to be tiresome. I heard much discussion in those circles about what it was to be a master and I never heard anything that was terribly useful. Maybe it's just my American nature, but I tend to be distrustful of those who lean on titles. I have my own title that lends some automatic authority to me in the appropriate circles, but I don't laud it outside of that area unless something comes up that directly applies to it.

I've already said too much, and I need to go change a diaper.