the master strikes of Liechtaneur

[Joachim Nilsson]

Hi Jeff,

"Plunging" in this instance is more in the meaning of "something rapidly swooping down from above". Sometimes minor linguistical problems arise when dealing with English and old German dialects. For instance: Modern Swedish have a lot more in common with High Gothic German that it has with English or even modern German for that matter. We have a lot of words and expression in the Swedish language today that are derived directly from the old German dialects. This is due to the fact that throughout the medieval period there was a great deal of cultural exchange between Sweden and the German states. We also had a significant population of Germans living in the major cities at the time. This have left its mark on both our culture as well as our language. Point in question "Sturzhau" becomes, if directly translated to Swedish; "Störthugg" or "Störtande hugg".

"Störta" = "to crash (down)", i.e. as in, for instance, "plane crash"

So: Perhaps "Plunging cut" could also be called something like "Falling cut". This even though the Swedish word "störtande" translates perfectly well into "plunging".

With all that in mind I still believe that Meyer is talking about a cut.

When he states:

one strike's through by plunging from above , and that the point comes against the opponent's face from ox,

I lbelieve he simply is stating what the position you end up in after finishing the cut looks like. If the cut misses or does not connect to the desired degree and effect, then you can make a thrust. Especially since the Sturzhau, when finished, puts you in Ox. Should you chose to thrust from there -you would be performing what Talhoffer has dubbed the "Geschrenkt Ortt" -the thrust with crossed hands.

Best regards,

[Joachim Nilsson]

Hi Roger,

You have indeed keen eyes. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> I have touched upon this subject in a previous post above. To recap: To a degree it probably is just artistic variation, even though other factors are at play too. The techniques themselves however are what is important in the plates, and they do carry over from one plate to another.

Martin once stated that the reason for the intense variation in personal appearances in the fechbuch could simply be because Talhoffer had a bunch of guys financing his fechtbuch, and as such they wanted their faces in there. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

And I can assure you that we have gotten the techniques discussed to work in both theory as well as pratice. At speed and with intent. Else I wouldn't have argumented so fiercly for my point of view in this matter. <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Best regards,

[Joachim Nilsson]

I also add the possibility that perhaps the artist drew one plate per day and the models he was using were different every day as well as their clothes.

Yes! A very interesting idea. I like! Very plausible.

Also: It happens a couple of times throughout the manuscript actually that one of the fighters looks exactly the same over the course of connected plates, not just in plate 2 and 3.

[Roger Soucy]

That you've tested the technique thoroughly I do not doubt. Nor do I doubt it's potential usefullness or validity. I have to wonder though if in fact Talhoffer meant the plates to be connected.

I have a theory that just popped into my head. Mostly it stems from the idea that such subtle obfuscation of his techniques in order to keep them secret seems to me to be a little far fetched, but interesting. That the masters wanted their techniques kept secret I don't argue, but such a subtle method as having the art depict seperate fighters seems wrong to me.

Anyway, here's the theory, and I don't think it invalidates anything you've come up with Joachim.

Say you are Talhoffer and a well respected teacher of the long sword. You write a fechtbuch that details a few of what you consider "the basics", but in so doing you reveal many techniques to those who can "read between the plates", even though you had no intention of revealing such.

Mostly what it comes down to is I doubt Talhoffer had the level of complexity in mind that you attribute to him when writing his fechtbuch. However, that complexity may have been injected into the fechtbuch by the sheer fact that this man was a teacher and could not show even a small bit of his art without revealing a vast array.

I'm not saying such complexity is not in the fechtbuch, but perhaps it is there unintentionally on Talhoffer's part. It seems more likely to me than such subte intentional obfuscation.

The only problem with either view however is the question "Are we reading too much into it?". As I said before, if the techniques work consistantly at speed, I would say we are not reading too much into it, but the question must always be there when we assume something from a manual that is not actually described or pictured. Especially since others will question us.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Joachim

I hate the Linguistic thing i am barely able type in english(right Jake,lol) and i was born into it, lol, when i think Plunge i think of an up and down type motion and Cut to me is any thing using the edge.

I have been thinking that you are in Och's and push the blade past there head and then pull back to ochs to cut them going down on the push and pulling up to och's, hence plunge up and down, back and forth, side to side motion of any plunger.

kind of like Dupliren in Rigeck, that has been my thought on struzhau

Just my thought's

Jeff

[George Turner]

Thanks Joachim,

Now you've got me contemplating plate 1, and I do think it's related in a couple ways.

For those following along at home here's the three plates.

Plate 1
Plate 2
Plate 3

I think Talhoffer uses them as a teaching aid, kind of like war-workplace safety posters. Maybe he's not deliberately vague, he's just not limiting each plate's usefulness by overly defining its meaning. Talhoffer may have used his plates to illustrate multiple things, like both the beginning and ending of a sequence, illustrating one of the possibilities, or showing a warning of what happens if you don't follow the text.

Anyway, plate 1 is oberhow and underhow, yet the underhow has been completed while the oberhow has just begun. I think one meaning of plate 1 is simply "wechssel breaks ochs", or really a more general form of such a statement, kind of "this happens".

Back to Adam on the left and Bob on the right. Adam's oberhau is just beginning probably because he's been put there as a result of Bob displacing Adam's prior guard with a cut from below, basically an illustration of the simple concept that tail guards or underhaus break long point, ochs, and similar, knocking the adversary's blade up and in this case possibly creating an opening for a crosswise thrust. Meanwhile Adam in plate 1 had his blade knocked up so he continues into a position for an oberhau to break the anticipated thrust.

Following the logic of plates 2 and 3 this particular sequence would continue in the mirror form of plates 2 and 3, with the vom tag on the left shoulder instead of the right, and the thrusts made crosswise with the false edge blows made with uncrossed arms, as we discussed earlier.

But plate 1 also might be serving another meaning, an introduction to 2 and 3 with the simple statement that "everyone knows an underhau displaces ochs and similar."

Plates 2 and 3 then show you how to twitch in response to the series of oberhaus and unterhaus that are trying to break your point forward position, becoming kind of like a vertical revolving door to roll with each blow.

So basically, plates 1 2 and 3 could illustrate that underhow breaks ochs, but from ochs or similar you twitch between zorn ortt and sturtzhow. If you don't twitch you end up back at plate 1, but the way you can get to 2 and 3 is going through plate 1, by breaking ochs with an unterhau and following up with a thrust, forcing your opponent to start his sequence of swings, which you counter by twitching.

The possible meanings all very densely packed. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[George Turner]

Hmmm... Following this line of reasoning might give one possible interpretation to Plate 4

1. Weschel breaks ochs
2. Unless ochs twitches into a thrust of wrath
3. And the oberhau used to break the thrust of wrath fails if the thruster twitch back around to deliver a sturzhau.

So in 2 and 3 we see Bob's sequence from vom tag to wechssel and back failing against Adam's twitching pattern of thrusts and cuts.

4. So instead do this. When Bob on the right faces an ochs or similar from wechssel and breaks it, as in plate 2, he doesn't continue on to vom tag because Adam is twitching around (counter-clockwise in the plate) to get to zorn ortt and the position in plate 3. As Adam is twitching around Bob instead moves from pretty much the position in plate 1 to delivering a cross-hand thrust of his own, instead of going back to an overhead guard. This forces Adam to change his thrust and allows Bob to break the cycle of plates 2, 3, 2, 3.

However, I don't know if it mechanically works and I don't know the step count or anything. So I'm really vague on 4, but if Adam was trying to get to plate 3 from plate 2 it would explain why his 'long thrust of wrath' completely missed, as he had a counter thrust to deal with.

So that's my inchoate thought on plate 4.

[Jake_Norwood]

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is another thread de-railing, but have you looked over my Meyer Dagger material, unfinished as it is?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'll try not to make it de-rail too far. Where can this dagger material of your be found? You've peaked my interest. Especially since it just so happens that Martin and I have been working a lot with Talhoffer's dagger and would like to.... well, expand the horizon.

In all its unfinished glory it can be found at norwoodj.tollfreepage.com/RMA

As I said, it's incomplete (I have a more complete version on my computer, but it won't go up for a little while still. It comprises the first third, maybe, of Meyer's dagger and ringen. The translations (flawed as they probably are) are all mine.

Jake

ps Any discussion of this rescource should move to another thread.

Jake

[Jake_Norwood]

There's two discussions here now: Sturzhau and Talhoffer.

I'm dealing with the former, content to just watch the latter.

I went out and worked with the sturzhau (new understanding, the cut) today, using my brand-new "Federschwerter" (referring to the type of sword seen in Mair, Meyer, etc.). While I find this technique to be clumsy with most wasters (surprise surprise), it works great with a steel sword. Here's my concerns, now that I've worked with it:

1. What separates the Sturzhau from, say, Meyer's Scheilhau. The only thing at first glance is that one comes from the right, the other comes from the left, and both strike the right shoulder (it seems).

2. When I do it in thin air I find myself finishing in a sort of twisted, deep pflug on the right. Technique is *my* problem, I realize, but I want to see if there's something I can learn from this, or if the "ending in ochs" is more something that comes from an opposition in the form of a target. If it's me (and it usually is), then I'm thinking that I'm not keeping my left hand high enough.

Jake

[Brian Hunt]

Hey Jake,

how about a few details on your new sword? Maker? Dimensions? Pics? Opinions? (so as not to derail this thread further, how about a new thread on your new toy?)

please.

Brian Hunt
GFS.