Talk:Company of Masters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Related task forces (general topics):
	Military technology and engineering task force
	Weaponry task force
Related task forces (periods and conflicts):
	Early Modern Warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792)

[edit] Support for Expansion

This article is on a subject of some interest to me, and I would certainly like to see it expanded. Firstly, the article needs citations for material currently in place, as well as for any future material added. I would also like to see more information on the manner with which the members advanced, the role of Prize Playing, and even information (if available) about the relative ease of advancement (did almost everyone who tried for Provost fail? 70%? 50%?). It would also be nice to see important individuals within the organization, perhaps names for the four "senior Masters". Also, a section on the societal impact of the organization would not be undue, as the role of judicial and non-judicial duelling was (I believe) a relatively important element of this society, with such a school providing an individual the means with which to win his life. Also, I think with the upswing in historical martial arts reconstruction, it may be worth to note that a very similar system of rank has come into use by the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts. --Xiliquiern 14:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a very common ranking system for historical fencing groups, not just ARMA. There is actually a modern Company of Maisters of the Science of Defence (http://www.maisters.demon.co.uk/ - very outdated homepage), in England, founded by Terry Brown, and named in honour of the original company. They might be worth a mention too. Megalophias 21:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely - I only knew of the ARMA ranking system, but it certainly makes sense for historical fencing organizations to model themselves after the "real deal". --Xiliquiern 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)