The swordplay’s the thing: Henry VIII's Masters of Defence and the thrilling world of 16th-century fencing

One of these fencers, Isaac Kennard, was a junior fencing teacher of the Masters of Defence, a national organisation of fencers and fencing instructors. Isaac held the rank of provost. The other, Gregory Grene, was his senior and possessed the rank of master.

If Isaac fought well against Gregory – and then two other fencing masters with a range of weapons – he would graduate from the rank of provost, which he had had held since 1575, and become a licensed master of the Masters of Defence. This advancement was to be his ‘prize’.

The two men turned to face each other, saluted, and advanced. They fought vigorously, with the sound of their steel swords ringing in the air as both men earnestly attempted to strike the other.

Isaac’s public testament of his martial ability began well. After he had fought six bouts with the two-handed sword against three masters, the masters in attendance – including Isaac’s own master, Richard Smythe – judged him sufficient to continue and begin the second series of combats, this time with the backsword (a single-edged, single-handed sword).

During this second round of combats, Isaac was struck by disaster, or rather by the blade of William Mucklowe, one of his opponents. He was summarily dismissed, unsuccessful in attaining the coveted rank of master.

Yet Isaac’s hopes were not dashed, for he returned the following week to try again for his master’s prize, this time demonstrating his mastery of the sword and buckler as well as and the rapier and dagger.

On his second attempt, Isaac proved a tougher match for his returning opponents. He fought well against Gregory, William, and his third opponent William Joyner, and was finally permitted to call himself a master.

A popular pastime

Fencing was a popular pastime across England in the 16th century. In 1545, Roger Ascham (future tutor to Queen Elizabeth I) wrote that masters willing to impart their knowledge of swordsmanship could be found “all mooste in everye towne”.

But before teaching others how to fight in a fencing school, a fencer was supposed to become a licensed provost or master. These licenses were gained by successfully playing a prize, as Isaac did in 1578.

Some fencers, however, attempted to teach without first obtaining a license. This proved troublesome, for many of these unlicensed instructors were judged to have insufficiently taught their students. Licensed masters and provosts lost valuable income to these illegitimate instructors, whose bad teaching also disparaged the profession.

In 1540, King Henry VIII granted nine masters and eleven provosts letters patent which granted them the right to enquire, view, and search throughout England, Wales, and Ireland for unlicensed fencing teachers and bring them before justices of the peace. Such troublemakers were fined, and repeat offenders were jailed. This commission from Henry is the oldest-known mention of the organisation that would go on to be known as the Masters of Defence, an organisation which effectively operated as a guild of fencers until the early 17th century.

New members of the Masters of Defence joined with the rank of scholar. Once they had been taught how to fight with a range of weapons, including the two-handed sword, the backsword, and the sword and buckler, these scholars could play their scholar’s prize and graduate to the rank of free scholar. Before they could play a prize in public, however, they were required to demonstrate their skill to the four ancient masters – the leaders of the organisation.

Many fencers were content to remain as free scholars, but others sought to advance and gain a license to teach others how to use swords, daggers, and staff weapons. After what was supposed to be a period of seven years further training, the free scholar could play his provost’s prize (but in reality, many free scholars gained promotion after a couple of years). Following a successful provost’s prize, and additional tuition, provosts like Isaac Kennard could finally play their master’s prize.

Very few members of the Masters of Defence were full-time fencing teachers. Some were servants to the gentry and high-ranking members of the aristocracy such as Elizabeth I’s suitor, Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester. Others worked primarily as craftsmen, as jerkin makers, glovers, and tailors. Some even had military experience. Anthony Ffenruther, who was a fencing master in the 1570s, was a Master of the Gunners at the Tower of London. Another master, Edmond Darcy, had served in Ireland.

The most famous fencer?

Perhaps the most famous member of the Masters of Defence, however, was Richard Tarlton. Richard was an Elizabethan comic actor who worked for multiple theatre troupes in the 1580s, and was supposedly Queen Elizabeth I’s favourite clown. He even became groom-in-ordinary to the royal chamber, yet still found time to organise fencing schools as some of his students became masters in their own right.

The organisation of these schools was strictly controlled, both by the Masters of Defence as well as local and national authorities. Masters and provosts alike had to swear oaths guaranteeing good behaviour. They were forbidden from teaching their art to violent criminals and were not allowed to undercut their fellows’ prices in order to draw more students into their own schools.

Further limitations were put in place by the state. A proclamation of 1566 claimed that ‘the encreasse of nombres of parsons taking upon them to teache the multitude of the common people to play at all kynde of weapons’ had led to growing disorder in England’s towns and cities, and so fencing instructors were to be obedient to any orders given to them by governors.

Fencing schools were even banned in Cambridge during the latter half of the 16th century, alongside dance schools, dice houses, cock fights, and animal baiting. Those found attending were ordered to pay fines.

This legislature was part of a late medieval and early modern attempt to restrict non-working activities to those considered ‘proper’, permitted only in the right time and the right place, so as to curtail what authorities perceived as idle activity. Many writers at the time viewed the sort of fencing taught in these schools as suitable only for civilian violence and not applicable to fighting in wartime, which was more respectable.

Prizes as entertainment

Despite the restrictions placed on fencing schools, the population of Tudor England flocked at the chance to see fencers cross swords on the stage. The owner of one playhouse which hosted prizes – The Rose – expected his share to be more profitable when hosting prizes than when plays were performed at his establishment.

Nor were prizes the only public displays of martial skill staged by the Masters of Defence. On several occasions, they performed exhibition matches for the Tudor kings and queens of England. These bouts, known as ‘challenges’, were fought in front of Henry VIII as well as each of his three children during their own reigns, at venues including Hampton Court and Westminster Palace.

These displays of physical skill and violent prowess remind us of the enduring human fascination with the intersection of danger and entertainment. Many of the activities that people enjoy today are not too dissimilar from the entertainments of the past. Just as crowds packed out inns and playhouses to see fencers in the 16th and 17th centuries, so today do audiences fill out stadiums and arenas to see boxing, wrestling, and mixed martial arts events. Indeed, unarmed combat was also popular in Tudor England: wrestling was very popular, and often featured at fairs and market days.

The prizes fought by the Masters of Defence can be viewed in two ways. For the combatants, they were a way of becoming licensed fencing instructors, and a good performance could entice potential students into their schools. Audiences were certainly aware of this, but also viewed the prize as a violent spectacle which could become a social occasion. Drinking, betting, and dining all accompanied prize fights. One amateur fencer, the gentleman John North, bought dinner for himself and five friends after going to watch a prize at the Bull in the 1570s.

Even though these displays of martial prowess – we can even think of prizes a bit like an exam – were not fought with intent to injure, they were still a particularly violent form of entertainment. Blunted or rebated weapons still had the capacity to seriously injure an opponent if they were struck hard enough, and there is no mention in any sources of prizors wearing any armour or other protective equipment, even though the head was a legitimate target. It is likely, however, that thrusts were forbidden.

Not every swordsman, however, agreed with the sort of combat practised by the Masters of Defence. In his 1599 fencing treatise Paradoxes of Defence, the gentleman George Silver observed that “at the single Sword, Sword and Dagger, & Sword and Buckler, they forbid the thrust, & at the single Rapier, and Rapier & Dagger, they forbid the blow”. According to Silver, a good swordsman should be able to both cut and thrust. Ignoring either was an “evill order or custome” which made it hard to make ‘a good Scholler’ of the sword.

Jacob H Deacon is a historian of late medieval and early modern martial culture. His research explores fencing, tournaments, and arms and armour. Find him on X @DeaconJH and Bluesky @deaconjh.bsky.social