What ranking systems did Renaissance fencing schools use?

[James Brazas]

Hello, everyone! Our group is looking to redo our ranking system and we're very interested in learning how different fencing schools in the Medieval/Renaissance era did their ranking.

I know ARMA's system is to have scholar, then free scholar, then senior free scholar, then provost (with no master rank). I've read the rationale for why ARMA does not include a "master" rank and it makes perfect sense.

Basically, here are my questions:

1. What ranking systems were used in period? What sorts of terms would be used for the different ranks?

2. What qualifications were normally required for the different ranks? I assume that demonstrated sparring skill was paramount.

3. Where there any distinguishing marks given for different ranks? (Such as different colored clothing or special hats, coats, belts, insignias, patches, etc.)

Any help with this would be much appreciated since we want to operate as similarly as possible to the original Renaissance fencing schools.

[Stacy Clifford]

ARMA's rankings are derived from the Elizabethan fencing guilds (not exactly, but close), and have evolved a bit over time. Currently they are:

Scholar: Every member starts at this rank.
Scholar Adept: Requires a test of both physical competence at drills & exercises and knowledge of source literature and ARMA curriculum.
Free Scholar: Requires demonstration of advanced fighting prowess through ~1 hr. sparring test with a particular weapon, starting with longsword.
Provost: Requires Free Scholar ranking in at least three different weapons.

Because we have a very egalitarian group philosophy, members with higher rankings do not distinguish themselves with any special markings; we are all students of the Art, and we all wear the same uniform.

[James Brazas]

OK, thanks for the information! I talked with our group and it looks like we will be doing something very similar. Except we plan on starting people off at "novice" and not having a "scholar adept" rank.

I have one last question on this subject:

What do you do regarding Sidesword-and-Buckler?

Is training in Sidesword-and-Buckler considered a subset of Sword-and-Buckler or a subset of Sidesword?

I know ARMA has rank testing for Cut-and-Thrust/Sidesword as well as for Sword-and-Buckler, so I thought I would ask.

After all, it's the only weapon style that we're not quite sure how to categorize yet.

[Stacy Clifford]

I don't think we've had enough people doing sidesword & buckler to need a ruling on that, but I could see arguments for it going either way. Most likely it would be allowed in both categories because either way it demonstrates versatility.

[James Brazas]

OK. That makes sense.

I guess we'll just count any work on Sidesword-and-Buckler as work towards both Sword-and-Buckler proficiency and Sidesword proficiency.

Thanks!