ANST - Masters..., and then there are Masters

[Brent & Susan Rachel]

Rolf Kvamme wrote:

> Some said that by saying this that we where saying that fencing was a lesser
> art.  I disagree.  It is a very noble art. If you research into what a
> period fencing master was and what he taught, you will be surprised.  (I am
> lumping english and german schools together for expediency.) Students
> learned broadsword and buckler, halberd, pike, two handed sword, duseck,
> grips, and other weapons of war.  In the english school rapier was a later
> weapon to be mastered after short sword and long. A period master also
> taught how to be a gentleman, chess and gaming, dance, etc..  A student had
> to play the prize in public to attain higher levels.(with all weapons).  So
> to recap my rambling... If you strive to recreate a period fencing master in
> the sca, you eventually will become a member of the chivalry and a white
> scarf.

My research into the same matters has yielded a MUCH different result.  You have
synthesized several vastly different kinds of masters above.

London Masters of Defense - not very "noble" gentlemen.  Yes THEY taught
broadsword, 2-hander, pike, etc.  Their "Mastery" was a government sanctioned
monopoly and was designed to lock out foreign competition in teaching the
non-noble classes the skills they needed to go to war.  Their journeymen and
apprentice ranks - provost and scholar- (for make no mistake, they were a
guild)  "played public prizes" for promotion.  This was advertising,  They
probably were not overly concerned with chess and gentlemanly skills.  They were
making common soldiers.

The Marxbruder in Germany were very similar to the above, but with loftier
trappings.

*The* (various) Masters who wrote manuals throughout the renaissance and
beyond..., they were NOT "Masters of Defense" by title.  Not all of them even
used the term "(de)fence".   Many of them did not actively teach pike, 2-hander,
broadsword, etc.  They tended to specialize a bit.  They did not take provosts
and scholars, as they were not the heads of guilds.., as such they did not "play
prizes" in public.  They headed their own salles, so to speak.  The clientele of
these guys was of a higher quality, and I could see some "finishing school"
aspects coming into play here.

The Order of the White Scarf was not founded on either of these models, but was
a direct overlaying of the armored combat structure onto it's country cousin
(jest!!), using inspirations from Cyrano for terminology and insignia.  It was
never intended to branch into what are, within our Society, weapons of armored
combat..., though a great many of us do fight heavy, to one degree or another.

Many folks DO now use these "Masters of Defense" models, that is certain.  It is
not, however, the norm.  The "Individual Master" paradigm seems to be more the
norm here..., but that is not to say that we all do things that way.  You really
can't lump us very easily.

For myself, I like aspects of each.  The LMoD and Marxbruder concepts are not
"Noble" enough for me, though the 20th century in me likes the organization...,
the "Individual Master" is too consuming..., I do not define myself by what I do
with a rapier.

Kazimir Petrovich





============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.