The ARMA and everyone else.

[Sam Nankivell]

Mr. Nankivell,

It would be ridiculous of me to suggest that classical fencing techniques be employed with medieval or renaissance weapons.

I do refer to the Art not having changed, not having died, but surviving completely in the principles of Nature into which we are born as men and are able to study, know, employ and teach, and yes, equally as well and as effectively as they were centuries ago, for these are the principles of fencing, of the Art. Nature and man have not changed over time, only that of his own making.

Too many scholars today have become fixated and blinkered as a result of thinking that any fencing master or scholar with a knowledge and working ability in classical fencing can surely know and practice only that and nothing else!
What injustice of sensibilities is this?

It could not be considered as rational the similar notion that just because a man is seen riding a bicycle means that he surely cannot know how to ride a horse.

Obviously a different seat and operational knowledge is required for each mode of transport, the same as different technical knowledge is required for each weapon.
Personally, I am capable of riding a bicycle, motorbike, car, boat and aircraft. Many methods of getting there, but the Art is riding, the techniques lie in operating the specific mode or tool employed to express the Art.

Equally, I profess to teach the Art of Defence with many different weapons forms, but only those which I have personally spent the years in knowing and learning from source material and ultimately through experience in application according to the same Art, the Art which is the subject of my qualification.

I claim no tuitional lineage to any renaissance or medieval master, and that is as much as I should feel neccessary to repeat my words.

I can only hope that this might be clear enough for understanding.

Regarding the IMAF issue that has here been raised, the details of this were quite honestly unknown to me, as it is not my business to meddle or nosey into the affairs of associates or others who are more than capable of handling themselves.
But my recent direct enquiries do reveal that the details posted here are not True, but corruption of assumptions and false conclusions. This is no great surprise, as I have borne witness to the very same before, and on many occasions in this World, where men are willing to accept the rumours of another without employing first their own judgement.

Be wary of rumours, for they distract from Truth and real knowledge.

There can only be one Truth for any matter. All else is rumours.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

Mr Macdonald:

Mr. Hunt expresses most of my opinions and points in response to your statement concerning mastership and who can teach what. Right now, I am concerned more with this Mr. Loriega. I can see you quite clearly support his position, but I am curious as to what evidence you can bring to light contradicting the evidence others have shown for Mr. Loriega's dishonesty.

[Nathan Dexter]

Mr. MacDonald: If you claim no lineage past the 18th century, then why is the first thing on the IMAF website in english this:

"The International Masters at Arms Federation is an organization of professional teachers of Western Armed Arts. It is mostly focused on Historical and Classical fencing, that is to say, fencing of the 14th through the 19th centuries, based on surviving traditions and historical documentation." This clearly states that the IMAF claims this lineage.

[Michael Eging]

I guess, after having read the thread and kept silent for a while digesting all of this, I needed to register a comment. For me, the difficulty I have is similar to those expressed by many of the other respondents. Mr. MacDonald, you may very well be a nice person and have aspects of recreated medieval and renaissance martial arts that you could share with us. I enjoy learning and comparing, even if I don't agree. But I am hung up on the esoteric argument that the Art has been with us since the beginning and is part of Nature. The Art of what? War? Use of objects (in whatever shape they take) to inflict damage and kill? The Art is not well defined. And I would argue that the mechanics of swinging a club or throwing a rock are very different from those used to work with a longsword or rapier. And the mechanics of those are very different from those employed to use a bayonet socketed to the end of a rifle or a foil or epee. The use of such a vauge term brought to my imagination the difference in Art from cave drawings to classical greek urns to Michaelangelo to Picasso to myself with pencil or someone with crayons and scraps of paper. Art, in a sense, is employed, but what Art? The term means different things to different people.

I argue, rather, that the necessity to utilize implements of war has existed over the centuries, but the Art is not some sort of esoteric continuum. There are deadends, building blocks that evolved into techniques used today in sport and even on the battlefield. But a master of a 19th or 18th century was certainly not a master of the 14th or 15th century. And the Art seen on the battlefield or even the back alleys of the 1400's was not going to be employed in a duel in the 1800's. However, history is full of deadends and renaissance (recreations). From the Carolingians through the late Byzantines and into Italy - even into today.

But the Art and claims of mastery have meaning for ARMAteers and you have not found support for your position. But, that being said, you may very well be diligent and skilled. I am not in a position to judge that. As your students pointed out, you may also be lion-hearted, etc. But that still doesn't prove the validity of your position and the claims of mastery over ealier forms of edged weapon martial art.

As to the contention that you could show us through some sort of display of martial prowess that (I guess is implied) would either dazzle us, or beat us senseless - I contend there are lots of people who could dazzle and pound me without a wit of medieval or renaissance recreated skill (including a drill sergeant I encountered in the Army many years ago). He was a pugel stick master. Now, that may not be your intent, but that is how it felt reading through your posts.

All the best,

[Paul Macdonald]

Mr. Nankivell et All,

Gentlemen, I feel as though my engagement in this thread has lost its spirited appeal as I now find myself simply obliged to repeat myself time and again.

The answers to all questions now posed I have already presented, and my working time and day might be better employed in practically making and teaching something new rather than repeating the same words.

Regarding Mr. Loriega, I have by direct enquiries discovered the Truth of this matter and it is very simple. The supposed story earlier presented on this thread is simply not True.
Yes, there was a matter of contention between Mr. Loriega and the Spanish, but what has been implied as to lineage is false information.
It is not my place to discuss details of another mans issue. All I am prepared to present is my own knowledge based upon the Truthful facts that I research and experience.

Mr. Dexter,

Please examine my words regarding what I previously determine as that which has never left us (that being surviving traditions) and what fencing masters make no claims about.

Mr. Eging,

Art of Fencing.


Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[John_Clements]

The whole process of being taught by a teacher who comes from a “line” of teachers is meaningless unless there is some preserved core skill-set of collected knowledge that was retained unchanged and transmitted unbroken from instructor to instructor along the way. For the martial arts of the Renaissance, we know this was not the case. Virtually nothing survived the generations to be retained and passed on by later fencing masters using wholly different tools and methods for far narrower conditions of self-defense.
It is one thing today to construct a new curriculum of martial skills based on interpretation of the historical methods within the surviving source literature, and then call yourself a “master” of that new reconstructed effort. But it’s something else entirely to claim some unique authority in this subject by virtue of some supposed “special learning” acquired from some dead modern fencing instructor who allegedly preserved “secret knowledge” of lost arts. In the first case it is called renewal and revival; in the second it’s simply called fraud. What makes such claims all the more pathetic is when self-proclaimed experts exhibit comparatively mediocre fighting skills.

What’s funny though, is how the heart of such a claim uses a number of entirely fallacious arguments. It commits the logical fallacy of Accident (a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid). That is, to erroneously argue by applying a generality to a particular case without proper regard to particular conditions whose characteristics render the case inapplicable: “Renaissance fencing masters were knowledgebase in these arts, therefore, I as a modern fencing master am knowledgebase in these arts.” Ironically, it also commits the fallacy of Converse Accident (a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter), to argue from a special case to a general rule: “I am a modern fencing master, therefore, I have the knowledge of skills from all previous Renaissance fencing masters.” It’s also a form of False Generalization, trying to declare a general fact from particular cases where there is not enough evidence to do so. That is, arguing from the parts of a whole to the attributes of a whole itself (i.e., if every part of a machine is light then the entire machine must be light).

For more on this, btw, see some of the entries from our site’s piece on “Top Myths of Renaissance Martial Arts”.

JC

[Sam Nankivell]

Mr. Nankivell et All,

Gentlemen, I feel as though my engagement in this thread has lost its spirited appeal as I now find myself simply obliged to repeat myself time and again.

The answers to all questions now posed I have already presented, and my working time and day might be better employed in practically making and teaching something new rather than repeating the same words.

Regarding Mr. Loriega, I have by direct enquiries discovered the Truth of this matter and it is very simple. The supposed story earlier presented on this thread is simply not True.
Yes, there was a matter of contention between Mr. Loriega and the Spanish, but what has been implied as to lineage is false information.
It is not my place to discuss details of another mans issue. All I am prepared to present is my own knowledge based upon the Truthful facts that I research and experience.

Mr. Dexter,

Please examine my words regarding what I previously determine as that which has never left us (that being surviving traditions) and what fencing masters make no claims about.

Mr. Eging,

Art of Fencing.


Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

I think we have to set a couple things straight about this issue:

Mr. MacDonald has explicitly stated before that he does not have a lineage going back to the Renaissance, regardless of what the IMAF says about its masters. Therefore, there is no need to keep on bringing up evidence about lack of lineages, we are preaching to the choir. Although I do find it rather odd that Mr. MacDonald seems to disagree with his parent organization in this matter.

In the case of the "Art of Fencing" issue, this seems to simply be about philosophical perspective. I would have to agree with ARMA about this particular point. Yes, timing, distance and other such concepts are present in multiple systems. However, each one has different meaning in each system, like the difference between fencing with a smallsword (double-time) and a rapier (single-time). I don't mean to sound insulting Mr. Macdonald, but you will have to come up with a better response to Mr. Eging's points then three words and a period.

Mr. Macdonald:

I can see that you believe that Mr. Loriega is innocent and I do trust your judgement as a person. However, I also retain quite a bit of respect for ARMA and ARMAteers and their opinion seems to state otherwise, in addition to explaining to me the evidence. Until you can provide some evidence besides your own direct enquiries, I am afraid I am still leaning to the ARMA side on this issue.

I am sorry if you are finding this to be quite redundant and tedious, but trust me. Although ARMA keeps repeating some points, there are some points which you leave unanswered (such as the issue of what you earlier declared about not having any line of lineage contradicting the IMAF's statements). So please, if this is tiring to you then I apologise, but if this discussion is at all to be productive, then you will have to clarify yourself. If you feel that you have clarified yourself as much as possible, then I am sorry, but there is no possible way this discussion can be productive.

Thanks.

[Rod-Thornton]

...What makes such claims all the more pathetic is when self-proclaimed experts exhibit comparatively mediocre fighting skills.....JC

Well said. Was it not one of the actual masters (DiGrassi's english translation in 1594) who boldly wrote:

"...True Arte of Defence, plainlie teaching by infallible Demonstration...the manner and forme how a man...may safelie handle all sortes of Weapons as well...." (abbrev. for simplicity)

Don't overlook the fact of which words are capitalized (to indicate the importance of them)
True, Arte, Defence, >Demonstration<, all sortes of Weapons.

In reading Sidney Anglo's works, I recall clearly his printed declaration that no such living lineage was discernable between any such school of study and today's exploring fencers. A guy who's well-researched, with a professional academic reputation on the line. Crystal clear statement on the subject. As you stated John, simply pathetic to try and argue the pointless. Those claiming this connection might well as try to argue the sky is pink and not blue.

[Paul Macdonald]

Mr. Clements,

I can only agree with your every word and sentiment of your last post.

I have never once claimed or pretended to be anything that you refer to, and stand in full agreement to your views regarding false and erroneous claims to `mastery`, ability or qualification in the Art.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[Francisco Uribe]

Mr. Uribe and All,

It has become clear from following posts that my own words here are sadly being completely ignored, not given any amount of consideration before being overlooked and the same old questions being pointlessly raised again.

Thank you for returning to dialog especially after that, oh so teatrical, exit you did a few post s ago.

This would go much much easier, if instead of using rethoric tricks, you would answer the questions directly.
A clear answer leaves no room for further questioning…. Don’t you think?

The same cry goes up, "but how dare they claim a direct lineage to the medieval or renaissance masters, etc"!!
I have never claimed this and do not claim this.

No fencing master today ever has or does claim this.

Then I strongly suggest you to check for webpages, specially the ones you are related to, to be specific and clear on the language they use to refer to your mastery of any of such arts.
The title “traditional master” on the IMAF pages specifically specify tradition. Either you specify that is for your clasical fencing, or do not use it at all. The same goes for other IMAF members.
I would think that some as you, who praises himself as a teacher, would be very careful about what specifics are said and that they are clear enough without leaving room for interpreting something that you clarly say is not. Hmmm?
Being this a sensitive subject, and basically agreeing with us in these matters, don’t you think that it would be necessary for general rectifications on official the pages that tell us about yourself?

I have already here given good reason and logic as to why this is not neccessary or relevant for fencing masters to legitimately exist and profess the Art in the same manner today.

If you follow my drift, the same arguments can be applied to explain why there is still people doing alchemy or astrology in an age were the science of chemistry and Astronomy have demonstrated their futility.
You really need to do better.

Too often have I seen closed minds and rumour-mills generate and gather momentum in the World of European martial arts and historical fencing. Too often have I also observed the sad effects that these false words and ideas have upon perfectly reasonable minds that are simply naieve or unthinkingly accepting enough to simply believe them upon first hearing rather than think for themselves or attempt to elicit the Truth of the matter.

Excuse me Mr. McDonald, what makes you think that you are the only one interested in determining the truth? Do you think we in ARMA, and me in particular, are we not?

Mr. Uribe, you have suggested that I and other professionals are liars and untruthful. These are strong words.
quote]

I do not suggest, as you poorly stated it Mr. McDonald.
I directly say that Mr. Loriega has made up a huge lie around this sevillian steel matter. This information came directly from the spanish students of Mr. Sinclair. On top of that there have been several people that knowing Mr. Loriega’s experience in Sevilla have tried to find the shool (Peolple that live in the same neigborhood he claims the school is in).
If you have a different version of what happened that day, I would be glad to hear it. Specially if you can get onbe of the people that talked to Mr. Loriega that day to rectify what is that he, and the others there, misunderstood.
For the conversation I had in the AEEA forum, there was no misunderstanding and when the point was brought to Mr. Martinez and Mr. Sinclair (By the same guys) there were ignored.

As a founder member of the IMAF this should be of interest to you MR. McDonald. This is not being nosy as you state. If you are going to use your own reputation to back up someone else, you better be damn sure that the person you are supporting is telling the truth.
To the eyes of many, besides myself, Loriega has lied. As an IMAF member that agreed to Mr. Lorieg’as inclusion you have been framed yourself by whoever presented Mr. Loriega’s nomination to the IMAF, or you are actively deceiving the public.
I guess it is easy to appreciate the logic behind this reasoning.
In any case there is some responsibility on your shoulders.
If you are innocent as you claim… who is the liar? It seems evidently that Loriega it is but did he do it with the colaboration of the other IMAF masters?
In any case this speaks very badly how IMAF masters are verified for the truthfulness of their credentials.
I believe it is your duty to find out and make that public. Personally I would not like to be associated with people that poves to be of such caliber… I guess you wouldn’t either. Am I wrong?

In any case, unless I am presented with solid undeniable proof to the oposite in this Loriega matter and the correction of the ambiguos information available in your official websites, I will continue to upholding my opinions and ideas in these matters.
Show undeniable proof to support your claims and mend ambiguities, I will not only apologize and eat my words, but I will become your fiercest supporter.

I can only again state that we see in the World what resides in our Heart at any time.

I hope you realize that this also aplies to your own case.

Mark your words man, and be certain before presenting them.

And what do you think I've been doing so far?

[Francisco Uribe]

Mr. Clements,
I have never once claimed or pretended to be anything that you refer to, and stand in full agreement to your views regarding false and erroneous claims to `mastery`, ability or qualification in the Art.

Then you should promptly rectify all those official webpages that trough their inherent ambiguity, tell the opposite.
It is in everybody's best interest.

[Francisco Uribe]

Then you should promptly rectify all those official webpages that trough their inherent ambiguity, tell the opposite.
It is in everybody's best interest.

And definetively exhort the other IMAF masters to do the same.

[Michael Eging]

It seems we have hit a rhetorical dead horse on the use of Art = Art of Fencing. Mr. MacDonald, I would just avoid sweeping generalizations as they tend to stretch and bend in ways we might not intend. The Art of Fencing may have in fact been with use since the time of early edged weapons, but as I have studied history, I would not be able to support the postulation that the Art has been with us in a grand sweeping generalization. The diversion into mechanics, motion, muscle, etc. were really unsupportable from the evidence, as is the spiritual implied knowledge of the Art.

If that were the case, my collegiate sport fencing experience would resemble far more the motion and mechanics of earlier systems. It does not. Nor does the intent for sport fencing prepare me to fight with a longsword in proper stance, motion etc., with real intent (in an earlier standard). I spent a number of years in sport fencing, but cannot claim to be a master, nor did my coach claim to be a master and he was incredible, by my humble standards. I learned new muscle motion, a different sense of distance and timing, as well as other principles when I took up studying with a terrific study partner in Gary Gryzbek in Northern New Jersey. Where my early longsword was in the crayon category, Gary was much more advanced.

I echo the thought that maestro, master, or whatever term used to designate mastery (vs. instructor, or teacher) needs to be well considered prior to use, particularly as we are learning from masters who are long dead and no amount of spiritual, metaphysical or other grand connection is going to recreate the medieval or rennaisance Art of Fencing. Study, sweat, and exploration of intent are the building blocks that work for me.



All the best,
Mike

[Nathan Dexter]

I bring to your attention the fact that there are still existing Worldwide living traditions and lineages of many respectable cultural Arts by way of European indigenous music, language, poetry, dance, metalworking, weaving, calligraphy, brewing, painting, cordwaining, astrology, dry-stane dyking but to name a very few.

They all survive and they all still exist, and moreso, to practical ends.

HEMA is no different and I would advise you to seriously check your facts before responding.

Mr. MacDonald:
If you claim no "living lineage" why was this in your first post on page one of this thread. If you say you have made no claims to these ends, then you are either forgeting what you have said, or you are lying.

[Paul Macdonald]

Gentlemen,

Now we are becoming embroiled in matters of semantics.

Both regarding what the word Master means (again...., and to which I have clarified earlier in this thread) and to what Living Lineage means.

Maestri Martinez and Sinclair I know can rightly claim a tradition of tuitional knowledge from the late C18th and C19th centuries, but this does not in any way limit their knowledge and indeed what they learned, as being classical fencing only.
I myself have been recipient of what is likely the last surviving lineage of singlestick tuition in Britain, passed from the continued military tradition to the first fencing master I studied under and then to myself. Even so, this does not limit my knowledge and ability to singlestick alone.

I have referred constantly through this thread to what I deem to be the stronger and truly unbroken lineage of the principles of Nature, these being what the Art of fencing and Defence is based upon.
This is the real living and surviving knowledge that can be known, understood, applied and imparted no differently today than it has been for centuries (yes, according to the specific mechanics and effective application of the specific weapon in hand).

As such, the term "living lineage" does not necessarily mean or in any way imply "from All historical masters" (or those that published at least!).

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

[Sam Nankivell]

Gentlemen,

Now we are becoming embroiled in matters of semantics.

Both regarding what the word Master means (again...., and to which I have clarified earlier in this thread) and to what Living Lineage means.

Maestri Martinez and Sinclair I know can rightly claim a tradition of tuitional knowledge from the late C18th and C19th centuries, but this does not in any way limit their knowledge and indeed what they learned, as being classical fencing only.
I myself have been recipient of what is likely the last surviving lineage of singlestick tuition in Britain, passed from the continued military tradition to the first fencing master I studied under and then to myself. Even so, this does not limit my knowledge and ability to singlestick alone.

I have referred constantly through this thread to what I deem to be the stronger and truly unbroken lineage of the principles of Nature, these being what the Art of fencing and Defence is based upon.
This is the real living and surviving knowledge that can be known, understood, applied and imparted no differently today than it has been for centuries (yes, according to the specific mechanics and effective application of the specific weapon in hand).

As such, the term "living lineage" does not necessarily mean or in any way imply "from All historical masters" (or those that published at least!).

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

We don't suggest that your mastership in classical fencing limits you to studying that subject only, we only think that that your mastership is limited to that subject only. In studying and reconstructing these arts, we are all pretty much in the same boat.

In terms of your idea of lineages, yes I agree with you. However, to say that fencing is one giant living lineage is a fairly self-evident point. What your saying seems to translate to is "We have been fighting for generations, we keep fighting, therefore, we know how to fight". Again, ARMA does not deny this, however, the point in question is that of specific combat lineages, not the sum general knowledge of humanity concerning fighting (For instance, the difference between Asian and Western swordsmanship, although both are fencing and both have the same goals, both are still quite different, and one certainly does not translate to the other).

We are not suggesting it is impossible that someone could become a master of these arts again, it's just that these arts are still in their infancy. After all, there is still so much we don't know about the martial arts of the Renaissance and the Middle ages, which makes "mastery" of the subject rather difficult. Basically, we don't believe that mastership is impossible, we just believe that no-one has earned the right to call themselves a "master" of Renaissance or Medieval martial arts yet, we are all still students trying to reconstruct and learn them.