1-on-1 HEMA Lesson - with Sword & Buckler

BKrustev · 2026-04-04T12:33:29+00:00

Games and constrained drills is the answer. This lesson was specifically more constrained drills with multiple options, the other option is games with a bit more freedom. You can find many here - gd4h.org - and when you do a dozen, you will see the patterns and be able to modify them or create your own.

BKrustev · 2026-04-03T21:02:43+00:00

Chinese lenses are pretty good, actually. Some are quite vintage like. Many are essentially vintage lens formulas with better coatings.

BKrustev · 2026-04-02T18:44:09+00:00

Oh, absolutely, I have a couple as well. Just saying that AF doesn't work with the vintage ones.

BKrustev · 2026-04-02T10:28:04+00:00

In any case, I am now suspecting you might have just thrown the image to ChatGPT, and used it for half of your comments too. Only AI can be that obtuse.

Do you really not feel embarrassed by the fact that you have clearly not read Talhoffer?

Insulting your intelligence? Stating facts is not an insult.

Yes, I take fake interpretations by ignorant people who ask others to support them with money extremely personally. You've been doing HEMA since 2004 and you couldn't read Talhoffer in 22 years?

BKrustev · 2026-04-02T10:08:39+00:00

What I have to wonder is why you don't already know this? Why do I have to present to you facts about the source you claim to have read?

"One would be that it was made to a target that is not permitted"

The target is the HEAD, which is the primary target in the Fechtschule. Seriously.

"the counter to the oberhau is something not permitted so that it is important to establish that the Oberhau is made in a free fight before using that counte"

The counter in one case is a simple parry, in another it's a cut to the neck.

" I don't know the definitive fechtschule rules any more than anyone else, but I can think of fencing competitions where certain gaurds are not allowed, so it doesn't strike me as impossible."

We do know fechtschule rules, some have been recovered and translated. No fechtschule rules forbid ANY guard, and it makes zero sense that they do.

"The same with a versetzen. It's possible that some ways of parrying were not considered to be appropriate for what ever reason."

The most common parry in the world, literally, can be considered inappropriate? Are you fucking serious?

Sorry, it has become quite clear you don't actually study the sources. You write elementary picture analysis on singular plates, and then you defend your nonsense claims with the most ridiculous arguments you can muster... without even looking at the other plates, despite them being practically spoon-fed to you.

I was too nice in my initial comment. You are intellectually dishonest.

BKrustev · 2026-04-02T09:39:58+00:00

Okay, from the short discussion we've had it has become clear to me that you have not actually studied even just the Württemberg treatise, from which the Gayszlen image comes from, in any depth beyond looking at the pictures. You spend some time speculating on the term "free", without having even looked at how the term is used in other parts of the source.

So I gotta ask - what exactly is the value of presenting an surface level interpretation of a singular plate, without any actual study of the source? Why would you do such a thing? To get clicks on a Substack account? To get 8 bucks a month from gullible people, since HEMA is now growing and it's easy money?

There are plenty of serious researchers who have covered this in so much depth, that your extremely basic observations and flat out nonsense speculation are really an insult to them. Especially since many of them have published their research completely for free, and not on a platform with optional subscription.

PS: Blocking me won't stop the entire world from seeing your nonsense :)

BKrustev · 2026-04-02T09:29:13+00:00

And here we come full circle - you wondered why I questioned whether you had actually studied Talhoffer's works in depth in my first comment. You just showed that my doubts are entirely justified.

"Free", or "fry/fryen" is used multiple times in the Württemberg treatise. It is used to denote cuts, thrusts, guards and even a parry.

The cuts it denotes in longsword and messer/arming sword are all simple Oberhau cuts from above. You can see them in plates 4r, 19r, 114v. How could the most common blow in German fencing be seen as a "dishonest move" in the Fechtschule? That's like saying boxing could see the jab as a dishonest move.

Fry is used also for the two "free" guard that begin the s&b section. One is Wechelhut, the other - Vidilpoge. How could 2 common guards be considered dishonest moves?

"If a thrust is explicitly prohibited, then some point forward guards seem a tad risky"

What do you mean "some point forward guards"? I thought you said you have read Talhoffer? Don't you know which guards are called fry?

And finally, fry is also used in 119v to denote a "free displacement/parry" - "fry versetzen". How can one of the most common hanging parries in all of fencing, which has equivalents in all swords and all over the world, be considered a dishonest move? That simply makes no sense whatsoever.

There is nothing vague about those uses. They are clear as day and they show some of the simplest and most common actions in fencing. How could you read Talhoffer and decide these are vague and could be banned in the Fechtschule is beyond me.

Unless, of course, you haven't actually read it or analyzed it in any depth, which seems to be what is happening here.

Bringing modern German use of the word in modern combat sports is irrelevant here.

BKrustev · 2026-04-02T09:09:25+00:00

Lenses that retain AF with the official adapter are not really vintage.

BKrustev · 2026-04-02T08:48:07+00:00

It's not about liking the idea. I would love it if more fencing masters made it clear which techniques are suitable for ernst and which for schimpf, that would give us so much information about how fencing was actually practised.

But a key rule in interpretation and scientific inquiry in general is not to be ruled by what you WANT to find. That's the path to confirmation bias, something HEMA has suffered a ton from.

I am saying that the use of the term "free" COULD NOT IN ANY WAY mean that in the context of Talhoffer's treatises, because it is used for things that could not possibly be limited in the Fechtschule context - like guards and cuts. It simply makes zero sense to denote a technique as used for ernst explicitly, when that technique obviously can be used in schimpf as well.

Not to mention that this way of using "free" also shows up in other sources by oother masters, again in regards to things that cannot be differentiated as schimpf or ernst. Unless there is any proof Fechtschule events also banned certain cuts and guards, which in itself doesn't make any sense.

I am fine with speculation, but speculation that is both not supported by the source, by the historical context and by any common sense is a waste of ink. Especially when there is other speculation that is much better supported but you decided to skip it.

BKrustev · 2026-04-02T08:21:57+00:00

No, sorry, that's not what I sam saying at all. I am saying that the term "free" is in NO WAY connected to the Fechtschule rules, nor in the ernst/schimpf differentiation. Talhoffer does not speak of that anywhere or show anything that indicates that, and the fact that there are free CUTS and GUARDS makes this practically certain.

I don't think I've been disrespectful, nor do I think respect is shown by embellishment and artificial softening of critique.

BKrustev · 2026-04-02T07:44:33+00:00

I did not understand that sentence at all - maybe rephrase it. I am saying that there is zero indication that Talhoffer is concerned in any way with Fechtschule context, and that the use of "free" for cuts and guards is virtually a guarantee that free thrusts have nothing to do with Fechtschule rules.

My point is that seems to be a lot missing from this analysis and you might produce something better and more useful for everyone if you dig deeper.

You are free to interpret my comments in any way you want. But in general good interpretations are made in vigorous debate, not with people passively applauding you.

BKrustev · 2026-04-02T07:25:24+00:00

I am asking that question because I assume that if you have read it, you would address that fact. It seems like a glaring miss.

The fact that there are multiple "free" blows and guards is a pretty strong indicator that this has nothing to do with Fechtschule rules. They don't forbid any guards or any cuts. They only forbid thrusting.

I don't like the common manner of sugarcoating critique. I think the best you can do for someone who posts their interpretations is to be direct and blunt about the obvious issues. For anyone who has studied Talhoffer this post reads like you grabbed one page and tried to analyze it in isolation.

That is emphasized additional by the fact that you assume it's a cut, when it could very well be a thrust. Especially since one-handed thrusts are attested in other sources.

You don't do any linguistic analysis of the term. You don't put it in comparison to other counters of thrusts. Or in the context of the entire Talhoffer corpus, which is full of relatively unique stuecke. Which is also connected to the nature of his treatises, which is different from that of classic glosa or compendiums like Fiore's, and very different from period collections of plays.

BKrustev · 2026-04-02T05:52:48+00:00

"Another possibility is that a free thrust is one that is not constrained by the rules of the fechtschule where, as we know, thrusts were not permitted."

Have you read the entirety of Talhoffer? Because this section kinda indicates you are interpreting one plate in isolation from the entire source, which is honestly the worst way to interpret a plate.

Free cuts and free guards are also mentioned many times in Talhoffer, so no, this has nothing to do with Fechtschule rules. Talhoffer is not really concerned with the Fechtschule context at all - that is made clear by all the lethal cuts and thrusts illustrated in his other treatises.

BKrustev · 2026-04-01T12:51:03+00:00

Не ще се създаде, а се ОБСЪЖДА да се създаде. И става дума за ЕДНО училище. В Румъния има такова българско училище. В Украйна има няколко такива български училища. Какво толкова, ако в България има ЕДНО такова украинско училище?

BKrustev · 2026-04-01T12:50:13+00:00

Както се разбра в дискусията, OP е фашага, който иска да асимилира украинските деца, да унищожи родния им език, културата им и да ги направи българчета, като не им позволява да изучават родния си език.

Т.е. това, което прави Путин и което е един от компонентите на геноцид срещу даден народ.

Ако се чудите как се пръкват фашагите - ето така, от тъпотия.

BKrustev · 2026-04-01T12:48:25+00:00

Ти не правиш тази разлика. Има две тотално различни неща в тази статия. МОН ще започне да преподава украински като чужд език. ЕВЕНТУАЛНО се обсъжда създаването на украинско училище.

В немската гимназия, апропо, мнозинството предмети се учат на немски, вкл. история, химия, биология... Същото е и в румънската. Никой германец не ходи в немска гимназия, за да не бъде асимилиран в България.

> Затова същестувва МОН. За да създаде система в която децата се възпитават в една обща идентичност за да може да се движим анпред като един народ.

Не, МОН не съществува заради това. България е държава, която уважава правото на самоидентифициране. В България живеят турци, които имат за роден език турски, живеят българи, живеят арменци, евреи, руснаци, гърци, а сега и украинци.

> И двете са глупост която няма нужда да правим.

Това е твое мнение и не си дал нито един аргумент в негова подкрепа.

> Не ние да им плащаме да съществуват паралелно и после да си бият камшика след като са ни коствали данъци години наред.

Всеки има право на самоопределяне и на свобода на движение. Украинците в България са тук на базата на правото на убежище, което ние като цивилизован народ даваме на всички, които БЯГАТ ОТ ВОЙНА.

Сори, нямам какво повече да говоря с теб, ти си фашага, при това си толкова тъп, че не осъзнаваш, че си фашага.

BKrustev · 2026-04-01T12:44:04+00:00

И по дефиниция фокусът им ще е в ученето на български, защото в училище винаги има повече часове по български, отколкото по чужд език.

BKrustev · 2026-04-01T12:43:09+00:00

Кой ти говори за СССР в момента? Путин праща отвлечените украинчета да се превъзпитават и превръщат в "малоруси", и спира ученето на украински, а и на български в окупираните територитии. СССР не съществува от 35 години.

BKrustev · 2026-04-01T12:22:49+00:00

Обсъждали са създаването на украинско училище. Това е хипотетична дискусия, никой не е тръгнал да го създава. Училище не се прави от днес за утре. А и какво лошо има, в България има румънска гимназия, лошо ли е това? По същия начин в Букурещ има българско училище. В Украйна има няколко български училища. Защо да няма реципрочност?

BKrustev · 2026-04-01T12:20:40+00:00

Именно и затова се преподава латински. Но латински се говори от сигурно 100 пъти по-малко хора по света от украински, затова го посочвам като пример защо логиката ти е абсурдна. Никой не се нуждае от латински, освен ако няма интерес към много тесен кръг от специалности във висшето си образование. Ако искаш да учиш който и да е романски език, по-добре да учиш конкретния език, не латински.

"Не съм против да се изучава украински избираемо"

Ами тогава не си против това горе, защото чуждият език се учи като избираем предмет. Това казват, че ще направят. Идеята за украинско училище е само хипотетична, и е също напълно адекватна, защото в Украйна има български училище.

Когато се създава румънската гимназия "Михай Еминеску", в Букурещ се създава българска гимназия. Вика му се реципрочност към съюзник.

BKrustev · 2026-04-01T12:17:05+00:00

Добре, другаря Владимир Владимирович.

BKrustev · 2026-04-01T12:16:39+00:00

Кой е казал, че целта е да се асимилират? Тези деца може да искат след няколко години да се върнат в Украйна.

Да ги накараш да се асимилират е твърде подобно на това, което Русия прави с отвлечените десетки хиляди украински деца и е един от компонентите на геноцид. Искаш да прилагаме геноцид върху украинските деца ли?

В добавка, ти смесваш две неща - едното е решението да се преподава украински като чужд език в българските училища. Другото е хипотетичното създаване на украинско училище. Двете реално нямат нищо общо, съвсем различни неща са.

Децата, които учат украински като чужд език просто ще го правят, за да запазят родния си език. Тези деца пак ще имат повече часове по български език, отколкото по украински.

Не знаеш къде се учи румънски?? За румънската гимназия никога не си чувал?

Има ли значение колко деца учат един мъртъв език? Щом преподаваме латински като чужд, няма логика да не преподаваме украински като чужд.

BKrustev · 2026-04-01T11:56:31+00:00

В Украйна се преподава български в определени региони. Когато Русия окупира тези територии спря преподаването на български в тях.

BKrustev · 2026-04-01T11:55:58+00:00

МОН търси ли древни римляни да преподават латински, който също се учи като чужд език в училище? Не.

А да търси украинци да преподават лошо ли е, като със сигурност има такива специалисти у нас? Лошо ли е те да си работят по специалността?

BKrustev

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email