Schielhau: The most difficult of the meisterhau´s

[Casper Bradak]

And don´t you mean Reverso fendente?

Yes, thanks.

I don´t get your meaning here! could you clerify for me please

Hmm. Say a sturzhau is only defined or given in example on one side, and the exact same technique is performed on the left side, yet given a different name, that bugs me. I think if someone interprets something like that, they're being overly analytical and looking at techniques in too much unnessesary detal, rather than as principles (be it a modern student or an ancient master). I don't know if that explanation helped either of us, but here's hoping.

[M Wallgren]

Well, we don´t know how pedagoic for example Talhoffer was. Perhaps in his day it was perfectly logical to refer to it like this. Talhoffer to is somewhat more "reduced" in his laguage often showing a picture and a few words.

Hope to explaine my point better soon, we swedes has a thing going with Talhoffer and you all wait for chrismas, you know Santas from here and all nice ARMA children may have a present this year... hehehehe

[M Wallgren]

Also, Then why have a destiction between wechselhut and a tailguard?

All defenisions have a pedagocial use, if there is a defenision that is accepted by the "Swordfightercommunity" it gets easier to describe what we are doing, espesially when there is Oceans and Continents between us, bro!! <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

But I Agree it can also confuse rather than define if there isn´t a clear acceptanse of the defenitions.

Hey, I think I was also somewhat vague... hehe

Martin

[Jake_Norwood]

Say a sturzhau is only defined or given in example on one side, and the exact same technique is performed on the left side, yet given a different name, that bugs me.

Understandable, but there's a few possible reasons why, as well as some repeated examples of this.

First, "symmetry" in medieval terms was two lions rampant facing one way, not one facing each way, as we'd do it now. With that mind set, it's easier to see that a strike from a certain side has one name, and is considered to be a different strike or guard from the other side.

Frex:

Zornhau is from the right. What do they call it when it comes from the left? I've only seen it referred to as an "oberhau." Pflug, in many manuals, is "upside down" on the left. Ringeck refers to "Nebenhut" on the left, but the techniques are all pretty clearly coming from what Meyer and others later call wechsel...which is common on the left but rare or undocumented on the right...where the same later authors refer to Nebenhut on the right.

As for the schiller/sturzhau, it's more possible that the earliest masters didn't differentiate, but there's a problem. The Schiller is perfromed with uncrossed arms (similar to the position of left ochs), but from the right side. Sturzhau is performed with crossed arms, like right ochs, but also from the right side. Likewsie, both attacks are aimed at the scalp or the opponent's right shoulder. So these aren't just mirror-image techniques of each other, but two different methods of cutting downward with the short edge. And the differentiation of crossed and uncrossed arms is not a small one, as winding and binding always reveal. Thus it's understandable to me that they would want to differentiate so that when the master says to the scholar, "attack me with a schiller" he knows what's coming, and how it's going to react to the bind. He can't say "attack me with a schiller from the left" if he means a sturzhau, because a sturzhau is a schiller from the right with crossed arms.

Okay, so those arguments were pretty disjointed, but do you see what I'm getting at?

Jake

[Casper Bradak]

I see what you're getting at, and I think it is a valid interpretation, but it's not enough to sway mine. I don't think a given example does an entire technique make. I think there are ideal ways, less than ideal ways, strong ways and weak ways of executing one technique, but I do think they generally are all the same technique, and not generally differentiated by side, foot position, etc., but purpose. I probably wouldn't want to do a shiller vs. a cut from the opponent's left, but I'd still call it a schiller if that's how I used it.
Like I've mentioned before though, I do think they can be further broken down by certain masters (especially later ones, who tended to get more and more specific with wards and techniques, further breaking them down as they neared extinction) which I think probably negates and validates any differences of opinion we may have.

[M Wallgren]

I don't think a given example does an entire technique make. I think there are ideal ways, less than ideal ways, strong ways and weak ways of executing one technique, but I do think they generally are all the same technique, and not generally differentiated by side, foot position, etc., but purpose.

I get your point here but I think you simplify "in absurdum". If we don´t define we could skip the terminology on meisterhau all togheter and call all the guards just "a guard".

I probably wouldn't want to do a shiller vs. a cut from the opponent's left, but I'd still call it a schiller if that's how I used it.

In this case I think there is a major difference between a "shiller" and a "sturzhau", The "Shiller" ending with the right foot forward and the "ochs" on the left side of your body and the arms not crossed, the "Sturtzhau" ending in with the left foot forward and the arms crossed in the right "Ochs". To me that´s as different as a "Zwerhau" to a "krumphau". But as long as we can sort them from eachother in some way, (calling the "Sturzhau" a "leftyshiller" or what ever we want) it´s fine.

Like I've mentioned before though, I do think they can be further broken down by certain masters (especially later ones, who tended to get more and more specific with wards and techniques, further breaking them down as they neared extinction) which I think probably negates and validates any differences of opinion we may have.

Could you soecify what you mean with later? When do you belive the art was at it´s best? The Example I made I took from the 1467 Hans Talhoffer fechtbuch. Is that late in your oppinion? Talhoffer and Ringeck was almost temporary and could have met, at least in theory.

(I want to ad that I think this is a Interessting debate <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> )

Martin

[ChrisThies]

I completely follow your differentiation between the 'Schielhau' [of Lichtenauer sources] and the 'Sturtzhow' [of Talhoffer 1467] as both being from the right only one is with crossed hands and the other is with uncrossed hands. A significant difference.

What I don't understand is: What makes Talhoffer's 'sturtzhow' different from a short edged 'Krumphau' that originated from the right?

Do I really have to wait until Christmas for the Swedish Santas to elaborate upon the exceptionality of Talhoffer's Sturtzhow? <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Jake_Norwood]

What I don't understand is: What makes Talhoffer's 'sturtzhow' different from a short edged 'Krumphau' that originated from the right?

Trajectory and arm position. The sturzhau ends in something like ochs; the krump in left schrankhut. The sturzhau comes down along a more or less vertical trajectory; the krump crosses the body. The sturzhau appears to always be with the short edge, while the krump is described as long-edged by most masters (when executed from the right), and short edged by others.

But yes, there are similarities...just as the scheitelhau and zornhau aren't that far off from each other, either.

Casper,

Part of the difference lies in the masters that address these attacks, yes. It's possible, I suppose, that Talhoffer had a sturzhau and Ringeck had a schiller and that though they illustrated/explained them on different sides when the met they might say "yeah, that's the same thing, basically." OTOH, Meyer shows both, and differentiates between them in description somewhat (though not tremendously, it's true).

Once again...are there 4 guards, or 8, or 12, or 30?

Yes. And none of the masters was wrong (AFAWK). Just different. We have a vexing modern tendency to try to correlate multiple sources as if they were meant to be correlated...but many of them weren't.

Jake

[M Wallgren]

What I don't understand is: What makes Talhoffer's 'sturtzhow' different from a short edged 'Krumphau' that originated from the right?

Do I really have to wait until Christmas for the Swedish Santas to elaborate upon the exceptionality of Talhoffer's Sturtzhow?

Well, Have you been nice;)

Just kidding...

Our interpretation is like Jake stated above.

As I wrote in another tread the Swedish language has a lot in common with the medival German dialects. It´s close enough to be read with just a little effort. The word "Sturz" is very simmilar to the Swedish "Störta", witch is what an airplaine does when it crash, could also be translated with falling as a falcon that strikes on a prey.

This gave us the Idé that if you get sombody on the "wrong" side when he opens with an "oberhau" from "vom tach" step to your left and dive past your enemys strike, strike down almost verticaly on the left side of his passing sword with your short edge hitting his head or sholder so that you end up in an "Ochs" on your right side.

If this do not kill him follow up with an "geschrenkt ortt" (a trust from the right "ochs").

We get it to work fine...

Cheers...

Martin

Hope this was not to confusing?

[ChrisThies]

Thanks Martin &amp; Jake for your info.

I attempted the Sturtzhow/Sturzhauw [spelling depending upon Talhoffer/Meyer source] in a solo drill session today. I used a sharp (which I prefer to do when the kids aren't around), and even did some impromptu test cutting against a double row/twisted horizontal line of some very cheap (I think it was 2-ply, or something like that) garden hose strung between two small trees at shoulder height. In the test cutting I initiated, from right vom tag, with a left foot lead stance, a sturzhauw against the imaginary opponent's right shoulder in conjunction with a 45 degree step out to the left (trying to simulate plate 2 of Talhoffer's 1467). I did this numerous times, executing both short edged sturzhauws and long edged krumphaus from the same start position, leaping out with my leading left foot.

I look forward to someday someone showing me the effectiveness, or perhaps the proper technique, of utilizing a sturzhauw instead of a krumphau in this particular scenerio. To be honest, I just couldn't get the sturzhauw to work effectively for me here.

The long edged krumphau was consistently accurate with full intent. My accuracy with the sturzhauw was miserable with full intent. The krumphau provided consistant vertical cut depths to the target material. The sturzhau cut depths were inconsistent, frequently more oblique and more shallow. And frankly, the krumphau just plain felt like I was deliver a little more power with the half-arm cut, whereas the sturzhauw just felt like more of a half-arm tag. Caveat: This was my first sturzhauw attempt, so I know that it could very well just be me and not the technique.

After reading your post Martin, I suspect that those fewer sturzhauws of mine that did appear to cut on par with the krumphau were probably those where I finished with a higher hand/hilt position (thus increasing that 'plunging' effect, which is what I think you were referring to as to what a plane does when it crashes - versus blowing up! <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> ). I'll have to replicate the test cutting again with a better cutting material and pay closer attention to my finish hand/hilt position upon those - albeit fewer - successful sturzhauws.

[BTW. When I was through with all of the sturzhauw and krumphau attempts, none of which completely cut through one of the two layers of hose, a single zornhau with a passing right step (instead of a step out with the leading left foot) cut right through the test material. But of course a passing right step doesn't fit into this plate 2 scenerio because you'd be stepping into the path of your opponent's Wechsselhow.]

[Another aside: the garden hose dulled my edge faster than stabbing it into dirt! I do not recommend using garden hose as a cutting material! Unless, of course, it's a cheap brand with an endpiece that was flattened by someone driving over it which you are going to throw away anyway.]

[JeffGentry]

Hey Guy's

I'm such a bone head, I have been following this thread for as long as this discussion has been going on and could not picture this the commen't about the krumphau finaly gave me a clue.

I could not figure out how the heck to do this now i see it, and it seem's it could be done in quit a few way's.

I did it a few time's in the air, if you stand in right vom tag and go to a right och's it is fast and seem's powerful.

Is that basicly how you do it or am i still a bone head?

Jeff

[M Wallgren]

Chris, thanks for trying our interpetation.

I think you do it right but just need to get work the technic in. I have planted my semi blunt about two inches diagonaly in to a fencepost with a Sturzhau many times. But yes The Sturzhau comes from a little more speedy less powerful aproach. A Zornhau is more powerful. What kind of longswrod do you use? I find it easier to do with a fast tapering blade like the Oakeshott type XVa or XVIIIa because the movement is centered around the hilt of the sword.

Jeff! Thats the way to do it, with a 45 degree left step to avoid the enemys strike.

Here I would also want to clearify that in sparring we haven´t done the "Sturzhau" as an opening more than a few times. More often it comes as this;

A) opens with an "Oberhau" from the "vom tach" on the right, B) counters it with a the same, In binding A) is weak and use the force from B)´s "Zornhau" to come around to the "Sturzhau" hence getting extra speed and force in it.

Sometimes B) is very fast and manage to counter the "Sturzhau" with a "vechselhau" and A) take a backstep and do a "Schitelhau" or a "Zwerchhau". (I prefer the "Schitelhau" because it break the left right pattern in the routine.)

The "Sturzhau" is not to be counted among the "Meisterhau" beause it´s more of a nasty trick than a counter/attackbreaking-strike. More on this in the x-mas gift...

Cheers...

Martin

[JeffGentry]

Hey Martin

I can see this as a opening move, if you have the patient's and timing to void and throw it just a bit in nachreisen, not to much though.

It would close the high right opening and facilitate another strike foot work would be extremely important.

Jeff

[M Wallgren]

Jepp. it has been done but it´s hard and takes guts.

PM sent!

Martin

[Jaron Bernstein]

Hmmm....I have tried to initiate with a sturzhau (starting in right vom tag and dropping down into right ox with the short edge down, if that is that you are describing) in sparring and haven't had much luck. Maybe it works better as a counter?